@@petemommo9622I was trying to remember if it was The Right Stuff or Dr. Strangelove. Classic line either way and completely true. The Germans not only had the brain trust to build The Bomb long before we did but it was never prioritized. In the movie Oppenheimer it's cast as Nazi anti-Semitism being the accidental savior and reason they didn't get the bomb; the truth was that Heisenberg wasn't given the mandate or resources to do it. Whether that was ideological or the German command staff thought they didn't need such a weapon isn't certain, but when US spy (and major league catcher) Moe Berg attended a lecture and talked with Heisenberg in Zurich in 1943 (with orders to shoot and kill Heisenberg on the spot if Berg concluded the Germans were getting close to having a bomb) the conclusion was that not only were they not close but there wasn't even a coherent program to make one anytime soon. Nevertheless, it's so scary to think about how a small handful of decisions could have swayed the outcome of WW2 and how different the world would be today had that happened.
What the hell were they doing asking a renowned historian like this to deliver this lecture, when they should have asked several thousand self appointed TH-cam experts to lecture them instead? Fools!
Actually, I was wondering why they even bother teaching History at colleges any more. With TH-cam and a couple hours, I can become an expert on anything!
@@otofoto If it were not for the strength of 27 million Soviet guys, Hitler's Nazism would have burned many more people in the furnaces of concentration camps than 6 million Jews and 9 million Soviet citizens. But this cannot be explained to a Nazi.
And trying to do this with a dysfunctional centrally planned economy was a huge mistake to go with it. Albert Speer worked "miracles" in increasing production. Not as "miraculous" as the immense productivity of American industry, but some tremendous increases in output? What was this "miracle"? He dismantled restrictions placed by the Nazi bureaucracy that were holding everything back.
Well, needing war materials shipped in from overseas and getting into a war with the largest naval power in the world kind of compounds that. It is fair to point to the types and organization of armor in the British and French armies (mostly organization and use) and the difficulties in fighting the Germans after they achieved a breakthrough (dealing with German mobile warfare tactics), and say the British and French were not prepared for the war they were going to have to fight. But it is also fair to point out that Germany wasn't prepared for a war with Britain, having no reasonable means of knocking Britain out of the war. The naval blockade bled Germany. They needed more oil than Romania could provide, but the blockade prevented import from Venezuela (with over 4 times the oil output of Romania). Germany could have beaten USSR, if not for this blockade and the need to keep large forces in France and Norway, and the massive losses to the Luftwaffe from the Battle of Britain. A thorn in Germany's side.
@@iansneddon2956 There's a billion nuanced details that guaranteed a Nazi defeat to the British empire, but people only look at the battle of Britain and sort of imagine Britain as this helpless damsel in distress
Hitler had no choice. They'd already occupied most of Eastern Europe and initiated a trade embargo. And newly created, at the Treaty of Versailles, Poland, was raping and slaughtering Germans in the Danzig corridor...50,000 Germans. He was surrounded from all sides and cut off. And the Bolsheviks, having arranged the largest military buildup in history all ain't the Eastern European border, were coming. Any attempt to say it was Hitler's mistakes that caused their eventual defeat is short sighted and stupid, where the ENTIRE world was arrayed against her, as funded by those terrible enemies of European Christianity.
I've heard there was a German tank commander (I think) who said something like "1 German tank was worth 4 US tanks. The problem was they always sent 5." Pretty amazing how much power Germany and Japan were separately able to muster in a fairly short amount of time.
@Craig Johnson Has anyone ever suggested that you may have seriously flawed ideas? Frankly, that's the impression I get from the statements you've posted. Being a classical liberal, I won't "report" your post but I suspect that most people would consider it.
@Craig Johnson you linked a vid with one woman who has multiple mental disorders who just says that her Jewish family was worshipping the devil as proof of your claims. This claim comes from a Christian point of view as jewish culture doesn't see the devil as an absolute force of evil but as a representation of temptations preventing you from submitting to gods will which is a weird thing to say you worship if you really come from a Jewish background. What part of your argument were you trying to reinforce with it?
Because no Country on earth could go to war against the US, UK and USSR all at once and hope to win. Basically Germany was fighting 6 other Germanys when you factor Manpower, resources and manufacturing capacity. The US alone had twice Germany's population , 5 times their resources and 4x their manufacturing capacity.
@Hugo Pointillart It's a known fact that Roosevelt wanted to get involved in the war with Russia and England scampering in the face of the German onslaught till late 1942 and 1943 he saw that as a chance to assert his supremacy by playing a big role in the war but Congress and the American public didn't find any reason to involve themselves in the war in the first place..Pearl Harbour attacks presented a great opportunity for the Govt and Roosevelt to gain support from American public and resources from the Congress for arms, ammunition in order not just help the Allies win the war but show them as the biggest contributors to its success thus giving the United States an opportunity to show the world their stature and clout, which was in the time to come was challenged by USSR which was then came to be known as the Cold War.
@Hugo Pointillart Actually, the fight in the East might well have gone for Germany if Germany did not have to tie down vast resources in the West -- 100 divisions in occupation, hundreds of submarines, much of the strength of the Luftwaffe -- and if the US and UK had not shipped vast supplies to the USSR. I always laugh when I hear Brits complaining about the US being late in rescuing the UK from a fight that it got itself into but then found it could not win without US help. When did the UK become a nation of ungrateful whiners?
21:07 The ignorance of cold and its drastic effects on people's health, while pretending to be able to tough it out, is one of the most teaching elements. It seems such a benign boasting, which many people still do today, yet it shows how being realistic can also mean looking "weak" in the eyes of delusional people.
i might get side-eyed for this one but i can’t think of a better example of unhealthy patriarchal bs hurting men. “real men can survive subzero war conditions in shorts” could be a south park bit, it staggers me how many men have had to suffer on this planet for being held to such inhuman standards masquerading as strength
Thanks. That’s almost as useful as a mathematics textbook that only tells you to “count carefully.”😂 sometimes your advice is so vague and broad that you might as well have said nothing at all.
Sun tzu’s manual was only applicable for his time period. Does modern military use doctrines from the 1700s? His manual today is only useful for morons to quote to make themself seem more intelligent than they actually are. So tired of all this sun tzu garbage. You have zero life lessons to learn from a military manual from any time period.
Lol stay in your delusional if you think that they are weak ,they are already economic super power and will soon before defacto world superpower overall
He knew there was no way to invade England. For these simple reasons: 1) he didnt have air supremacy 2) the German navy was vastly outnumbered and out gunned by the British 3) not enough landing craft 4) no enough resources to supply the troops
@@Speedymisha All are true except 4. What resources was he lacking in the time periods in which Operation Sealion wouldn've taken place? At that point in the war he had oil reserves and all the supplies he required for a huge land war in Britain. A land war in Britain would've required much less time and resources than the Eastern front required.
@@adamanderson3042 Well said. Plus... if we're honest here... Britain had the world's best navy (japan and usa were up and coming but britain was still #1 prewar), they had a decent airforce (RAF)... thats it. Their army was small and depleted, relying mostly on its colonies for manpower. The problem was air and naval superiority the axis did not have... If it weren't for that, Britain itself would have probably been invaded easier than France..
Hitler never wanted to go to war with Britain. He didn't even expect them to go to war over Poland. And the Soviets were VERY close to being defeated. the ukrainians HATED the Russians and the soviet government. He could have conscripted them. Had he not been tied in the west, Soviets would have been toast.
Men like him would never have stood a chance against the german blitz.those hands are so clean and uncalloused - he could turn a page, but he never shot a gun or dug a trench to find cover in.
Hitler to Mannerheim; "If one of my generals had stated that any nation had 35,000 tanks, I'd have said: 'You, my good sir, you see everything twice or ten times.You are crazy, you are seeing ghosts.'". Hitler underestimated the USSR and their winters. The window of opportunity for the Nazis to defeat the USSR was very narrow.
No, he had no window at all. Our goverment at the time was too stable and could have absorbed even more loses in manpower and territory. It is most likely that Stalin would go on fighting even if Nazis were marching past Urals mountains. Which is hard to imagine since infrasrucure there is just horrificly bad and distances are too big. Same story with Napoleon. Nicolas II goverment however was another story all together.
Great talk, and I agreed with all Dr Roberts' points. However, one important element was missing. Germany had no oil. It struggled by making substitutes from its coal reserves but this was never enough or of sufficient quality. The invasion of USSR was as much to do with getting hold of the oil fields in the south as anything else. It's also the reason Hitler did not want war with Britain. While our army and air force was lacking investment our so-called senior service was big enough to blockade Germany and prevent oil imports. Lack of fuel severely impeded the Nazi effort throughout the war and is one of the reasons they lost.
Interesting point, There were squads of German Luftwaffe personnel visiting Allied aircraft crash sites solely for the purpose of recovering aviation fuel and oil for use in their own fighters.
I think you are overlooking the Germans ability to get oil from Romania. Yes the 1942 campaign was toward the Caucasus oil fields but the initial invasion had other objectives.
@@pauloneil8531 No - they were chronically short of fuel throughout the war. This hampered their ability to mechamise their logistics and greatly reduced the impact of the Luftwaffe and Panzer divisions.
As I said Paul, I accept all Dr Roberts' points including Nazi aspirations to wipe out the USSR's Jews, to wipe out communism and create desirable living space for the 'master race'. But unlike his generals, Hitler wanted to prioritise the push to the Caucasus and warned them that if they failed to reach their goal they would run out of fuel. Romanian oil was only a small part of the solution. They needed Baku and its adjacent regions. But it was so far south the Nazis' eastern flank was hopelessly exposed and the supply lines overstretched.
Hitler was a politician, not a military strategist. As the presenter says over and over, he made military decisions using political ideology as his primary set of principles. Of course, this would never happen in the United States...I mean, no President would EVER interfere with military commanders in the field for political reasons *COUGH* LBJ *COUGH*
Call him whatever you want to but do not forget what brutal harm he did to so many innocent people; Don't forget that all his right-hand cronies, ~all turned to the allies for a way out after all their immortal actions; They cried and begged and killed themselves and their own kids; Don't forget,,, If killing off entire specific races of people AND then thinking you are gonna breed your own super race does not make you the #1 psychopathic of all time, what does? What is madness then?
A real charmer Told his people we are a great people.The master race Look at all our advances in Sciences All those Noble prizes we won Told them We Germans don't deserve to suffer like this
Guderian visited the Soviet Union in 1938 and wrote a report to higher staffs in the Wehrmacht, warning about the much better than anticipated tank force they had. It was ignored. That is what politics do to military leadership. You can observe this in the US nowadays and elsewhere too, I guess 😂😂
That's not the whole story. Soviets were able to concentrate on tanks as their fighters, trucks and I think locomotives were supplied by the US, and German morale on the front was being sapped by constant news of the homeland being bombed, which also cut German production. Take away lend-lease, or take away the bombing campaign, and the Germans wouldn't have been turned at Kursk, would have taken Baku's oil, have hung on in Stalingrad and advanced into Moscow. Guderian couldn't have foreseen lend-lease nor the Eighth Air Force so arguably his conclusions were correct.
@@lqr824 I am not touching other factors, playing out in later war years. I just hint an ignored fact by Hitler and today's pseudo-hindsight war ananlytics. You don't have to praise your US lend and lease psyops in me as well...Your Eight Air force did not turn the war 20 km in front of Moscow. Get off Discovery Channel 😂
The length of the Eastern Front fron the Artic coast of the Soviet Union to the Black Sea means that the overwhelming majority of fighting in Europe was on the Eastern Front and 90% of the German casualties in WWII were on the Eastern Front Front. Indeed, so great was the struggle on the Eastern Front that Allied support of the Soviet forces amounted to 2% of Soviet military supplies. The supply of US trucks was the one exception, these trucks, used alongside Soviet trucks meant that the Red Army was a fully motorised army while the German army was dependent on horse transport for its military supplies until the end ofvWWII.
@@almacmathain6195 Dream on...ur US garbage tanks and trucks were useless and left behind destroyed when the Ural factories went in full construction. The Soviet union would have won the war alone. France and GB would have been beaten totally without the Soviets. The US invasions just shortened the war and happened in fear of a soviet dominion.
@@almacmathain6195 > Indeed, so great was the struggle on the Eastern Front that Allied support of the Soviet forces amounted to 2% of Soviet military supplies. By what definition of supplies and according to who? That said, even if it was 2%, the Wehrmacht wouldn't have been turned at Kursk, would have destroyed Stalingrad and Leningrad and gotten Baku's oil without that aid.
I’d be wary to trust this speech. The presenter talks about strategy but doesn’t even mention the letter from the German armaments minister to Hitler in 1941 which said in no uncertain terms that Germany had six months of fuel reserves left and then they would be forced to DEMOBOLIZE. The invasion of Russia was a strategic move to drive for the oil in the caucuses but the generals wanted to capture Moscow and fought Hitler which resulted in a drive North instead of concentrating South on the oil fields. Ideology played a part but it was mostly propaganda to fuel the fire, not the underlying cause of the decision to invade. That this wasn’t even mentioned makes me very concerned because there is no way this historian hasn’t seen these primary sources. Besides, everyone knows the “we lost the war because of Hitler’s meddling” story was invented by surviving generals post-war in their memories to make themselves look better.
Because dictators always think they know everything and overrule the better advice of others who obviously know better. The narcisstic psychology that propelled these individuals into power thus becomes their own undoing. I'm glad they lost, otherwise many of us would not be here.
Hitler famously spurned the advice of his generals, intelligence services and scientists - confident he knew more than all of them. Remind you of anyone?
Two things England and Russia were mishandled. The phony war and how easily England folded in France should have showed him ignoring England after France would have worked. No U-boats, Italy is on their own in Africa, stay out of Greece and the Mediterranean, Briton for the most part would have become Sweden. If his phyco mind required invasion of Russia, build up your forces and not have 3 fronts to deal with. Not leaving Briton alone brought the US into the conflict, he had to deal with Russia, the bombing of Germany, Africa and Italy, the Atlantic wall, the Siegfried Line and land defense of Germany because such an invasion was real with US/English success in Africa and Italy. A single front in Russia with maximum effort probably would have worked, and you could use 100% of your U-boats cutting off British supply of Russia. And the US on the sidelines watching Russia, who stabbed France in the back with their treaty and their Polish invasion, probably would have stuck to their own problem with Japan and not given Russia enough aid to make any difference.
@LivingOnLifeDyingfromLife187 I found that to be an interesting comment, nevermind that other guy who seems to be posturing over nothing. In seeing a lot of shortcomings in modern politics I opted to heavily commit to learning about political philosophies through history, especially since I'm already a real history enthusiast, and it's pretty eye-opening to find the kinds of things like that which you've mentioned in your comment. In modern times we've internalized the Liberal conception(s) (I'm not using the term in that contemporary American partisan way) of politics and it really heavily affects our understanding of many things, I think.
@@mykofreder1682 The problem with Greece and some of the Balkans was that Hitler was allied with Mussolini and Mussolini wanted to re-establish something resembling the Roman Empire, and he didn't want to only live in Germanys shadow either, so he set out on his own conquests. Italy was, though, at war with Britain, due to being allied with Germany and due to Italy's engagements in Africa, so the British would have opened up new fronts anywhere Italy went, meaning that everything Italy did Germany had to bolster such that it didn't turn into something that could be used to strike effective blows. As for Britain and leaving it alone or not, Germany never wanted war with Britain. Britain and France declared war on Germany, and Germany sued for peace constantly throughout the first 2 years or so. It wasn't not leaving Britain alone that bought the US into the conflict, it was that Britain was trying to bring the US into the conflict, and even though it couldn't get the US in as an overt combatant, Britain was successful in managing to secure life-support from the US economy. This meant that the Germans were already up against the immensity of the American economic powerhouse, and since the US wasn't officially a combatant, Germany was in a strange spot wherein Britain, with the US economic backing, could whittle Germany down gradually, or Germany would have to be able to try and stop the US being able to keep Britain artificially alive. Germany was basically in a situation where it was screwed either way as far as the US.
No. Not at all.I do know the Americans got around 112 German scientists that were working on rocket technology.Werner Von Braun was one of them.He decided to surrender to the Americans,his brother spoke English and helped him.Where you get that the "Americans only kidnapped 1 Germany" is beyond me
The orator does have some valid points but he is mostly off on a lot of them. Hitler was an ideologue but not all of his motivations came from ideology. For example, his view that Hitler invaded the Soviet Union purely on racism and anti-semitism. Germany came out of the Weimar Republic without much oil and had to produce synthetic oil from coal which is an expensive process. Oil is one of the vital resources that is needed to maintain a mechanized military and for economic consumption for the economy in general. Hitler was an international economic expropriator and looter foremost when it came to military strategy. His world view isn't just that of racism but also cultures/nations struggle between other cultures/nations for the world's natural resources which is one of the bases of fascist autarky. The British had imposed a blockade on Germany which forced the state to pursue other sources of oil and that happens to be the Caucasus. Outside of the Caucasus and Russia, the only source of oil was Romania but that wasn't enough. The blockade would block imports by sea. Hitler wanted to control the oil fields of the region to switch his focus back at Britain. Germany did not have sufficient transport of materials and equipment. Their standard leFH 18 10.5cm howitzers were towed by horses and they didn't have enough heavy howitzers. That makes logical sense because a tank without fuel and oil is useless while a towed howitzer that is light enough can at least be moved by horses. Horses are not preferred for moving things around obviously because they are too slow. Hitler prioritized resources over tactics than his top generals. Hitler was no economic genius but he did have financial ministers/advisors, etc, so he had some grasp on the state of the economy of the nation and the military. He could either cease militarism or he could try to take over more resources to maintain an army. This is a very similar situation to the Saddam Hussien invading Kuwait in the 1990s. You have belligerent states who want a military but can't afford it, so in order to maintain it, they need to invest more wars to try to acquire more resources to sustain it for immediate satisfaction. The reason why Germany lost Operation Barbarossa was the focus on major cities such as Moscow which was not a good idea for a "quick war" because Blitzkrieg or tank tactics for that matter are not that effective in urban combat. Urban combat suits the defenders the most especially if they are more familiar with the environment. Cities were not major sources of resources, in fact, stuff like oil was imported from other regions into such cities such as the Volga River feeding Stalingrad from the South. By pursuing urban combat, the Germans opened themselves to setbacks such as "the grain elevator fight" in Stalingrad. Things like tank fire, light artillery fire, could not get the Russian defenders out of there. They would be in a drawn-out battle and allow the Soviets time to counter-attack while the Germans were in the least advantageous position basically nullifying the shock to the enemy. The Germans never surveyed the urban environment either which is not a good idea when fighting in unfamiliar territory. Even still, successfully capturing Moscow wouldn't guarantee Soviet surrender and it would be costly to do so. The German command thought of the France victory and had no grasp of the ferocity the Soviets had to defend their land. German generals also failed to realize how much of a disadvantage urban combat would be in a crunch. About Japan-Germany cooperation, the orator is correct. There wasn't much cooperation between the two and because of that, the US got into the war which was disastrous for the Axis because, at the time, the US was the greatest producer of oil by far. The US did not use horses for their towed artillery, they didn't need to. They used mechanized primary movers instead. The US could power a fleet of ships without much problems or a war effort.
i mean the invasion of the USSR was mostly due to ideology. Ever heard of Generalplan Ost? Do you know what Hitler thought of the Slavs, or what he wanted done to them?
Russian winter got Hitler,his weapons froze.Stalin had spies in Siberia worried about a Japanese attack that never came These troops were trained for winter fighting Had Hitler gotten to Stalingrad during better weather conditions, he would have gotten all the oil he needed, and he would have fought to last NAZI
@@Vedioviswritingservice "Afghanistan could!!!! :)" How would you know since Afghanistan has never been at war with those three countries at the same time. Plus, Afghanistan as the country and government was defeated in like one week if that. If your definition of 'beating' somebody is that once you are militarily and institutionally defeated and replaced, you still have pockets of armed guerrilla fighters continuing to resist, then shit, France and Poland both beat Germany long before the USSR, USA and UK.
I've heard it said that at various points during WW2, Allied forces had the ability to take Hitler out using either sneak attacks or some clandestine operation, but it was far enough into the overt conflict that the Allied powers realized that Hitler was such a colossally bad strategist, and tied up in ideological foolishness and internal power disputes, that it ironically made more sense to keep him in charge, because if he'd been taken out, almost ANYONE who'd have replaced him would've done a much better job and potentially cost the Allies the war.
Idk. There has to be more to the story that we’re not told. Like was it dresden or some city of civilians that was totally destroyed by the allied powers but didn’t need to be. There were lots of war crimes committed by the west. French raped as many people as the soviets. I did read there’s a secret cemetery that holds a hundred Americans convicted and killed for war crimes in Europe. Maybe hitler was a bad at strategy, but like then ya got operation paper clip and the U.S. taking back thousands of war criminals etc and some nazis later in life working in nato. Canada gave an applause to a nazi this past year cause he fought Russia haha. Then ya got ties from people in the federal reserve that had relatives in the central bank of Germany. It’s like that smells fishy.
@@koltoncrane3099 There was really no reason to bring whataboutism into this thread. Hitler sucked at strategy, that's all that really needs to be said.
@@koltoncrane3099 Was this guy a confirmed Nazi or was he just an average German soldier? Some people use Nazis for any standard German, not realizing that tons of Germans fought in the war that where not Nazis nor did they believe in them.
I was on a run while listening to this and the adrenaline from my eardrums being blasted to shreds made me run 2 miles further than I had anticipated lol
Why Hitler Lost the War - Actual version: You can't win a war on two world powers which can beat you in production, logistics, manpower, and energy/oil production at the same time.
@jomax clux Even in the great depression the US was way more economically productive than Germany. What you people need to realise is that the USA has like 4-6 times more people and like 13 times more natural resources and farmland than Germany. It's not because Germany's economy was shit or bad, Germany was handicapped in the exact same way as if the current USA went to war with 4 identical clone USA's. There is strength and power in higher numbers.
@jomax clux I don't know. It depends on your viewpoint. But for social programs I don't think that was true. I think that the US and Europe had identical safety nets until the end of WW2 when Europe increased them and started to create single payer systems.
facts, this guy thinks that analyzing specific examples of german blunders would change the fact that they were outproduced, outmanned, and outgunned. They simply could not have won a total victory against the allies.
@@ethanstewart3292 It is hard to argue, whether Germany "could have won WW2", since there was no one thing that brought defeat. Rather it was a series of bad decisions. Was there a chance if the Nazis had limited the war to Europe? would coordination with Japan had significant impact? Was Hitler a lizard? Well maybe, but it is hard to say.
@jomax clux WWII as we define it in the West started in 1939. USA did not enter until 1941. The Great Depression was catalyzed by the 1929 stock market crash, and was extended by a series of bad government decisions for almost ten years. The US was well on the way to an economic into a recovery before 1939, and the US population had been significantly higher than England and Germany's for decades before that. Had US not entered the war, Russia would still have wiped out Germany almost by themselves, but it would have cost then another ten million casualties, and taken an additional two years.
Hitler didn't declare war on the US because of ideology, it was a gesture to the Japanese in the hope that they would then declare war on the Soviet Union.
Didn't Germany have the entire British Army cornered and could have annihilated them all at Dunkirk, but instead allowed them to live and escape?... If they didn't do that maybe things would have happened differently.
I haven't really seen this explanation proposed, but I think it bears consideration. Hitler had a lot of respect for the British soldiers from his WWI experiences. 300,000 British troops with their backs to the Channel would not have been a walkover. The Germans still had to face considerable French forces reorganizing to the south. Every German casualty and every lost tank would be one less to finish mopping up the French. Hitler may not have considered the losses of an assault worth the gains. After all, British troops withdrawn to Britain, largely without their equipment, were effectively out of the battle for France.
This is a bit of myth. The germans were still bombing the hell out of them at Dunkirk. They stopped because they had outrun their supply lines and needed to rearm. In my opinion Hitler didn't just let them go but was waiting for his supply lines and would have captured them if he could.
@@samlusby4576 I am more inclined to agree with this point of view. Another thing that adds credence to an Operational pause to regroup, refit and rearm is that no one, including the Royal Navy, thought that Britain could pull over 400,000 troops out of a town with no working port facilities. Prior to the Operation the RN thought it might be able to pull between 40 and 80,000 men off the mole. Given this, it is probably likely that no one really thought most of those trapped troops would be going anywhere, so its likely that Hitler believed his forces would have the time to rearm, re-equip, and move in to mop that pocket up when his forces were back up to close to full strength and capability.
The Nazi party did not just include Hitler. He talks about this as all being the plot and ideology of one man. For instance, when talking about Ukraine, the harsh occupation plans were embedded not only in the ideology of the party, but also in the army. There is one crucial thing that Roberts does not include in criticizing this aspect: The Wehrmacht relied on the territory it occupied. There had been made no plans to provide sufficient rations and supplies to the army. In fact, the logistics were virtually ignored given that they believed the war to be over before Christmas. The plan was to simply take what they needed from the locals. It was this use of forced labour and food confiscation that turned the locals against the occupiers. The Nazi party and the army had decided to avoid the situation that they thought made them lose WW1: unrest at home. They wanted to maintain a comfortable life for the German civilian population. This necessitated a harsh occupation policy.
Werner Heisenberg was in charge of creation of german atomic bomb. When asked after the war why he failed to create one he said he did it purposefully as he did not wanted the nazi to have a nuclear bomb.
When Germany broke its pact with Stalin and invaded the USSR, Stalin feared doom for his regime if Japan, which already occupied China, invaded the Soviet Far East. Fortunately for Stalin, the Soviet dictator had a highly effective nest of spies among the Japanese: Richard Sorge, a German; Hotsumi Ozaki, a Japanese journalist; and Kinkazu Saionji, a Japanese political operative. As M. Stanton Evans details in _Blacklisted By History_, this circle of Soviet spies succeeded (or assisted) in persuading the Japanese government to strike south into Southeast Asia, rather than north into the Soviet Far East. Meanwhile Soviet spies in the US such as Lauchlan Currie lobbied FDR to seek an accommodation with Tokyo. This all took place in 1941. We will never know how differently events would have turned out if Germany and Japan had joined forces to crush the USSR in a pincer movement, Western forces were not drawn into East Asia to defend against Japan, and the US had stayed out of the Pacific war because Pearl Harbor never happened.
What a fantastic lecture. Liked that the lecturer himself was a touch nervous, he must've known the caliber of his audience then & they must've been some learned people. GREAT WORK TEACH!
Recycled British wartime propaganda is not fantastic. He does make his lecture interesting by it's delivery, but content wise it falls a bit flat. He did have some factual points like the Nazis not understanding America and that Hitler clung too tightly to ideology at the expense of sensible strategy. Also he had some other good point but here was working to continue to make sure the view of the British establishment remained the dominant view.
His generals weren't always right. There are times they told him something couldn't be done only for him to do it. Hitler was actually more competent than most people give him credit for. He more or so began to fall apart the older that he got.
Can't underplay British technology, which was a game changer. Radar, the Merlin aircraft engine, the Hedgehog anti submarine device, code breaking technology, I could go on. The US brought enormous production capacity to bear, a decisive factor, together with aircraft development.
@@evanpenny348 The Poles helped with the code breaking. But I agree, the Merlin gave the p-51 the performance to destroy the Luftwaffe. Radar was also crucial.
@@aristosachaion1784 Haw dare you to even consider the fact tha all allied countries were controlled by jews, antisemite!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@Reality Unveiled Disregarding your pic, I agree. His view was more that those people should all have their homeland. The Celts to theirs, the Nords to theirs, the Anglos to theirs. Hitler wrapped a rope around his neck with ethnic focus on one end and national focus on the other, forgetting that the two tend to pull apart from each other more often than not. In order for it to work out, you have to slowly reconcile the one with the other, not forcefully as he did.
@@DetachaplePenis until recently, the term of 'nationalism' has always referred to ethnocentricism - they were literally interchangeable. In other words, your claim that an ethnic focus competes with nationalism is ignorant, if not just outright stupid. Hitler's only mistake was showing mercy to people he hadn't yet defeated.
A Nation and an ethnicity are more often than not overlapping but not a perfect overlap. You get different ethnic groups living across national boundaries. A nation is the land you can govern, not the people necessarily. A nation has more rigid boundaries, an ethnicity isnt as confined. To reconcile the two you need to take land containing those peoples, give up land that doesn't, or remove people not fitting the target ethnicity. Hitler's mistake was not that he wanted ethnocentrism, it was that he wanted it quickly. That makes you threatening to surrounding nations, regardless of how justified you are in your removal of peoples or annexing of historical territory and thus you gain more enemies than allies.
@@harrykrumpacker871 I didn't mean to ignore him, I'd never gotten the notification of the message. It's 1AM at the moment, and I need to take a shit and go to sleep; I'll make my reply tomorrow
Excellent talk and delivered with an absolute minimum of notes . The point about ideology trumping sound military strategy is well made and entirely plausible.
Hitler lost the war because he did not follow the simple rule - Know Your Enemy. Hitler lost the war because the war was about industrial power and numbers of men. Hitler lost the war because his early bluffing and overpowering weaker forces made him feel invincible. Hitler lost the war because huge manpower and resources were wasted on "super weapons" and protoypes that never were produced. Hitler lost the war because he used an "unbreakable" code- the Enigma machine. Hitler lost the war because he made more strategic blunders than successes. The greatest event of the war was the USA economy which in 3.5 years produced massive munitions and equipment and the B-29 and atomic bomb.
An old german soilder once told me "Always be sure to polish the backs of your shoes because thats the last thing people see of you as your walking away" Old Hugo Hopfliecsh might have been on the wrong side in 43, but he was sharp as a tack.
Hitler did not want a Europe-wide war. He did not want war with Britain and France, who declared war on him after he went into Poland. The idea that he wanted to take over Britain is absurd, as is evidenced by his allowing the British Army to escape at Dunkirk. Also, Britain attacked German cities for months before Hitler finally retaliated with the Blitz.
Wrong. 1) He did not 'allow' British troops to escape at Dunkirk, they escaped *despite* him. Fact is no one, including the Royal Navy, thought that Britain would be able to evacuate 400,000 men from a town with no working port facilities. Hitler stopped the Panzers because they needed to refuel, rearm and reorganise, he and most of his Generals believed they had the time to do that. 2) British bombing of german cities before one particular incident was restricted to dropping LEAFLETS. The Government did not want to give Hitler any excuse to turn to bombing British cities as he had done in Holland, Belgium, France, Poland and Spain in the 30's. It was not until a Luftwaffe bomber dropped its bomb load over London that permission was given to the RAF to launch an actual bombing raid on Berlin in retaliation. Now, granted, that lone German Bomber was almost certainly lost and had no idea they had just bombed London, but the people on the ground DID NOT KNOW THAT. lastly, you do realise the idea behind defensive treaties right? If one of the signatories is attacked the other signatories join the war. Thats the damned POINT of a defensive treaty. Basically all of your arguments are demonstrably trash.
The colours are German, their composition as a tricolore mimicks the French one. That made a lot of sense in the 1820/30s. I do not know where you see Britain's role. The colours are commonly rooted back to Lützow's Freikorps in the Napoleonic wars, and often also to the Holy Roman Empire.
Herr Pickelhaubenmonarchist, you are not replying? Well, what a shame. Maybe you have read up on the matter on Wikipedia. You know, I wouldn't mind a Kaiser, provided he has little or no power. The constition of 1849 (Paulskirchenverfassung) would have been okay. But what we got wasn't. It's good that your lot at least had the decency not to abuse the democrats' colours.
In a nutshell, the Germans lost the war because they "bit off more than they could chew", largely thanks to Hitler's impulsiveness and arrogance. World War Two was the greatest industrial war in history, where the single most important factor was - IMHO - the production of weapons of quality, in vast quantities, and at the right time. The Germans - again IMHO - scored a "A" on quality, a "C+" on quantity, and a dismal "F" in timeliness.
Quality of tanks weren't even all that great because they were rushed in development during a war and their engines were never powerful enough for the panther or tiger or Ferdinand. Their heat most reliable tank was the panzer 4 or and the sturmgeshutz.
I enthusiastically concur! Just like Daesh at war with all miscreants, i.e., every human being, Muslim or whatever, who ain't a freak of their own sick sect... Or like the narcissistic Orange Buffoon, enabled by the decadent GOP party & empowered by voting Deplorables, at war with China on his own, befriending mortal enemies, thrashing allied economies, weakening fellow Western democracies. The good Dow Jones news won't last, the mortal debt and accented inequalities will before long badly bite Uncle Sam on the arse... The fat egomaniac will fall eventually and assuredly hurt many folks still wise, brave and free.
@Alien Alien I remember a day 42 years ago when I noticed a book of German propaganda that was on the shelves of a library in California. It showed a group of dead people in German uniforms. Now, I knew at the time that they were actually murdered Jews that the Nazis had dressed in German army uniforms to make propaganda that Poland had attacked Germany first. The book was in English. I brought it to the attention of the librarian that there was some wretched Nazi propaganda on the shelves. I knew that it was unlikely that there was someone so stupid as to believe it (after all, it was 1977 and people knew about Hitler, the Nazis, and the war), but it still angered me. Are you really so stupid as to believe Nazi propaganda in 2019? I somewhat doubt that you do, so I suspect that you must be a troll.
High on my (uninformed) list of missed opportunities was Hitler's failure to persuade Franco to attack or allow Germany to attack Gibraltar (from the land). Franco used the Luftwaffe to win the civil war and yet the terms or behaviour of both parties failed to form an agreement. The fall of Gibraltar would have changed the N.Africa campaign and the attack on Sicily.
If Spain were not "neutral", it would have opened up being attacked through both Italy and Spain. Spain was heavily weakened by the Civil War, and relied on the US for a lot of imports. An Axis Spain would have been a weakness.
On the surface it does seem like a missed opportunity, but looking into the events, there was little hope for the germans. Spain was still effectively a pile of rubble incapable of waging war on the scale of the second world war, a fact franco knew all too well. The person responsible for diplomacy with the Spanish was Wilhelm canaris, chief of the abwehr (german intelligence agency), who was very much against the war and nazism, so he would intentionally point out Germany's shortcomings and play up allied strength to franco to stop him from joining the axis, his work was instrumental in dashing any hopes of spanish participation. Franco would use the insider information to demand extensive aid to spain for her to join the war, which hitler was unwilling to give. These factors, combined with spanish, italian and french disputes in the Mediterranean and africa all cemented Spain's neutrality
It could have made an impact in the Mediterranean, but it very likely would not have affected Normandy, nor would it have affected the eastern front at all. The Germans needed to capture the Suez Canal to hurt allied commercial shipping, I don't think Spain would have gotten them to that strategic objective. Their lack of supplies is the biggest factor in the failure of North Africa, they also did not have the dominating manpower nor the resolve the British seemed to show in holding the canal. Like I said though, it doesn't change the eastern front in the slightest, which ultimately was the biggest threat. Germans needed better logistics which may have been possible if they had mechanized? But they flat out needed more oil and even steel, they quite simply could not manufacture equipment at a fast enough rate. Sabotage and aerial bombings wore their manufacturing down, until they ran out of fuel, equipment, territory to retreat, and men.
When our troops on the beaches, the King called for aday of prayer,the country responded and the changes were amazing, small boat owners said the channel was a calm as a mill pond, never done this before, the sky to stormy for the Luftwaffe, so this was for the nine days it took to clear the beaches, a panzer group was racing to Dunkirk and was suddenly ordered to stop by hitler, no one ever found out why and they had to stay put.
There seems to be quite a lot of what I'd consider outdated historiography here. Japan would have never helped Germany out. They weren't really allies in a true sense of the word, they simply had some mutual interests, but after the bloody nose Japan received at Khalkhin Gol they were extremely reluctant to rattle the Soviet Union. This was to the point that in 1945 a large reason why they held off on surrendering was because they were hoping to have Moscow mediate peace talks between them and the United States, a prospect that utterly failed when the USSR invaded Manchuria. The fall of Moscow would have meant nothing for the Soviet war effort either, for whom the war was existential, and that in itself was a dubious possibility at best considering that Army Group Centre was at a brink of total collapse after the counteroffensives following the Battle of Moscow. It's actually incredible how close Centre came to folding entirely, Moscow was their last true shot at anything for that campaign season. The Battle of Britain could also not have been won by the Nazis, and even had the RAF been damaged more than it was, Sealion would still be a nonstarter because the Royal Navy would have had a say in the matter and neither the Kriegsmarine nor the Luftwaffe would have a great chance against that force within the English Channel. Hitler's role is also, in my view, overstated. There were plenty of times in which Hitler listened to his generals and they were the ones who made mistakes. A lot of Hitler's tyranny was written about post-war by German generals who were trying to exonerate themselves, but especially prior to the attempt on his life in July 1944, Hitler was quite happy to listen to his generals, even in cases where he was correct and they were not. Hitler was famously very against Operation Citadel, saying that it made his "stomach turn over." Hitler did a lot of reshuffling, even moreso towards the end of the war, but by that point the war was already lost anyway and in many cases Hitler understood the overall strategic situation better than his commanders did. Let's not take their word at face value here - they were Nazi sympathisers or outright Nazis themselves, not exactly the most trustworthy bunch. Lastly, in this presentation there seems to be a distinct lack of United States. The US alone had the resources to outproduce Nazi Germany at a terrifying rate. Any discussion of any possibility of German victory in the war would have to be balanced out by the simple fact that the US could provide Lend Lease to all of her allies whilst also fully equipping her army with state-of-the-art equipment that could easily rival the best of German kit. No wunderwaffe could match the sheer production of the United States alone, and with USSR in the mix the numbers were simply impossible, especially with the artisan style of production Germany used prior to Speer's simplifying of the war economy in 1943 - far too late. Ultimately Nazi Germany couldn't have won the war. At best they could have hoped to murder a few tens of millions more innocent people, but there was never a chance that they would have won the war. Ideology was an extremely important part of this, and I agree that Hitler was extremely ideologically-driven, but Germany was also completely out-generalled and outproduced. They were defeated by smarter commanders, better strategy, and better equipment.
I agree with you. His approach seems to me to be almost frivolous. His point is their strategic decisions were wrong because were always based on ideological premises. That is a very superficial analysis. Ideology (a very pernicious one) played an important part but geopolitics, economy, sustainability of the war effort, the Soviet and American mobilization to a war economy, etc, (and Hitler was well aware of all that) all played an equal important part in the strategic decision making.
I agree that Germany could never have won the war once the US joined the Allies but that's precisely what Dr Roberts says: one of the foolish decision of Hitler's was to declare war to the US in December 41.
I agree that Germany could never have won the war once the US joined the Allies but that's precisely what Dr Roberts says: one of the foolish decision of Hitler's was to declare war to the US in December 41.
And why are you not lecturing at the US War College? 😮 After all, your “brilliant” and “Grand Strategy-focused” historiography is so ‘spot-on’ and ‘rich’ in evidential documentation, from the tactical and operational to the psychological and diplomatic! I try and try to locate your sources, particularly your own works on Amazon!!! 😢 In point of fact, I can’t help but hear De Gaulle in June of ‘40, Dowding in August of ‘40, Zukov in September of ‘41, Churchill in May of ‘42, etc. screaming: “GET ME ‘MRKapcer13!!!’ The name of your book again, please?? 😊 Ahh …… TH-cam 😂
@@michaelcoatney2568 Well said! TH-cam historians taking on people who have studied and published decades, always fun to read through the comment sections.
That's easy. He stopped attacking RAF airfields and started attacking English cities. Thus enabling RAF to grow stronger and win Battle of Britain which denied him German air cover over English Channel. So his boats were unable to cross the channel without being attacked by British aircraft.
@@rogerpattube Takes more than resources, when talking about Naval Buildup you also have to take into account the production facilities themselves. Fact is prior to the war Germany simply did not have the slipways required to build subs in such high numbers. Granted they buit more slipways during the war, and you do not need the kind of facilities to build submarines that are required to build Battleships, but the fact still remains that you *do* need those slipways, you do need those drydocks, and Germany simply did not have the Naval building capacity at the time to come anywhere near close to building that number of U-Boats prior to the war. Pretty much the only two nations that DID have that kind of Naval production capacity were Britain and the US.
The Japanese scenario does not bear in mind the defeats of the Japanese in Siberia in the 1938-1939 war. Furthermore, Hitler double crossed them by signing the Molotov Ribbentrop pact in 1939. Thus, the Japanese returned the favor in 1941.
Hardly surprising that an upper class Brit "historian" neglects to mention that Kim Philby was feeding Ultra decryptions to Stalin, who on occasion read them even before Churchill did. This was a decisive factor at Kursk, and thereafter informed the Soviet strategy during the German retreat, speeding up the Soviet advance considerably.
There were other factors. Hitler had Parkinson's, which probably affected his rigid decision making. If Hitler had started WW II a year later, Germany's military would have been much stronger (Roberts touches on this with his U-boat story). He never allowed his military to do strategic retreats. He thought every German should fight to the last man, and not retreat to fight another day. Also, Germany did not have enough oil to fully supply the Blitzkrieg. So many other factors.
Complete and other nonsense. 1. If Germany would have waited, then the allies would have gotten stronger too. They were not just waiting around. (Britain more than doubled its divisions, Soviet army was undergoing structural reforms) 2. Hitler did not allow the army to retreat in order to prevent a mass route like with Napoleon, and to prevent getting encircled. Therefore he came up with a system of strongpoints to defend which worked out pretty well. Hitler was not always right but also not always wrong, look at operation citadel where the Wehrmacht was defeated while Hitler said it was a bad idea and went with his generals ayway
If Hitler started WW II in 1940, he would have probably lost the very same year, at the latest by 1941. "He never allowed his military to do strategic retreats. He thought every German should fight to the last man, and not retreat to fight another day." Actually, he did (see retreat to the Dnieper) and in most cases, as in 1941, his decision to hold firm actually saved the Germans from collapse. "Also, Germany did not have enough oil to fully supply the Blitzkrieg. So many other factors. " That's what Hitler wanted to go after in 1941, but then, his supposed 'experts' convinced him that Moscow should have been prioritized and the rest is history.
He is talking with a lot of hindsight. If hitler had just listened to his generals, he wouldn’t have successfully invaded poland and france. So we shouldn’t just blame it all on hitler, like the entire high command did in their memoirs. But he does have a point with all the ideological nonsensical decisions. That really doesn’t require hindsight.
The reason(s) Germany lost the war cannot be Oversimplified by saying it was ideological. That's RIDICULOUS. Many, many factors. And it wasn't all a/h fault. That's also a myth.
Yes it's a fairly average lecture. So much more than ideological although that is obviously a part of it, but nowhere near the biggest. Very simple lecture.
He provides a common demoninator for many flawed decisions but does not put it forward as a single cause. He is much more nuanced in the lecture. Besides, it's a 36 min lecture, I would assume the book(s) is much more nuanced due to less space and audience restrictions.
Recent point in fact: President Trump told his generals (the real generals) "Go kill ISIS. Let me know when they're dead." That is how a President should fight a war.
Germany lost because they bit off more then they chew. Russia by them self's sure. America and England together...Maybe. But Canada, England, America, Australia, Russia, France, Africa, etc etc.....You can't fight everyone on the playground all at once....
@@rrt4511 If all of the allies in 1942(1/2)-1945 had backed out of the war and the only "allies" left were the Soviet Union then yeah I would say the Soviet Union would've still won even with all the redeployments of the Luffwaffe. But if the war with the Western allies never happened then Germany would've definitely won. Germany directing all of its resources into a war with Poland and then the USSR with no wars with the West happening between the periods of 1933-1945 would've resulted in USSR defeat. All of the oil and resources in the submarine campaign against England etc and all the manufacturing capability that could've been dedicated to only military equipment relevant to the Eastern front would be substantial.
@@rrt4511 I don't know. The German economy was bigger than the USSR and a significant percentage of its war time budget was dedicated to the navy and other forms of the military that were not utilised for the Eastern front. I feel like if Germany somehow KNEW for sure the Western allies weren't going to intervene, they could've pulled off a victory.
So each mistake made was ideologically driven. I don't believe when studied closely this passes scrutiny. To come to this conclusion one must believe that without these errors Germany would have won. The problem with that is that the battle of France (the German's greatest WWII victory) was very nearly undone when Guderian was ordered to stop and consolidate, but he ignored the order and continued to push ahead of the allied attempts to establish a defensive line. Though it was fast and conclusive, it's result was on a knifes edge and occurred despite Hitler's errors, not because of his decisions. Beyond that, the combined resources of the allies were simply too great. Even if the Germans had won at Stalingrad, or even got into Moscow, they simply did not have the resources or manpower to beat the Soviets with allied resourcing and Western European threats. Germany lost because they bit off more than they could chew. On nearly every battlefield after 1942, the Germans were outnumbered and outgunned. Even when, like at Kursk, they consolidated their forces for an attack. One could make the argument that if they had gotten to the Caucas's oil fields it would have changed things. The problem with this argument is it ignores the shortages in everything else to include(and most importantly) trained manpower. To execute the tactics that the Wehrmacht had been successful with required a cohesive well trained combined arms team. Once you no longer have that manpower, the system falls apart rapidly. The Germans, Hitler and the Nazi's could only have won WWII by making peace with one of the great powers they faced and dealing with them one at a time.
Quite often these explanations are simply post hoc ideological circlejerking about the Allies had a better form of government and culture when it's really just about manpower and industrial capacity. It's the same with almost any modern war. I'm sure the Chinese Communist Party preaches that they won the Chinese Civil War because Communism is superior.
Oil is why they lost. Hitler’s Generals failed to capture the necessary oil fields to maintain the German war machine. They were forced to go on the defensive with out enough oil to power all of their tanks. Their loss was inevitable after that point
inaccurate account of why Hitler moved further after Ukrain and Baltics. He was interested only in oil from Kaukaz mountains, hence Stalingrad battle. It was purely strategic since Germany was running out of resources.
+beatbang000 Baku and Maykop were already in Soviet territory. They were, by far, their main source of oil. It could be argued that depriving the Soviet Union of Caucasian oil refineries was actually more important, strategically, than adding them to the German economy.
Hitler should never have tried to go into North Africa. He never should have aggressed against Russia. Keep Poland as a buffer. Once Hitler had marched down through the Balkans to Greece, he should have conquered Palestine, established Israel, transported many, many Jews there, and marched to Baghdad. Once in Baghdad he should have established an oil pipeline from Baghdad to Televive, and shipped the oil in tankers to Greece and then a pipeline to the homeland. Only after establishing rule in those occupied territories should he have aggressed against The Netherlands, and Belgium.
The Commonwealth can't be thanked enough for their sacrifices. Of course the Resistance fought well and the Soviet Union suffered unmeasurable, but both Europe and the SU were fighting for their homeland while Americans, Canadians, Australian, NZ... could so much easier say "not my war" and yet they had the foresight, dedication and bravery to not let the Axis do as they pleased.
It was Halder not Hitler that bet everything on the USSR collapsing. Hitler wanted to go for the resources, especially oil. This is what you say he should have done. As for not making strategic retreats where was the oil to conduct them? Where was the oil to take back the territory conceded?
This man hit the bullseye. Hitler was blind. He imprisoned all the Jews, while the only thing he had to do was remove those in control of the money and the propaganda. Also, his “lebensraum” would turn potential allies into enemies with no other choice but fight to the bitter end. People say that Churchill was a Jewish puppet and a liar, that Stalin was a communist monster who killed more than Hitler. Well, Hitler proved to be the fool who sacrificed not only Germany, but the whole lot of Europe for his ideology of hate. And now, every time we try to take control of our continent back from the powers that be, we are called Nazi, as though we’re going to repeat the crimes of this maniac.
From my fathers memoirs : "In our estimations the Germans lost more men in the last four weeks than the previous 16 months. On the 6th of May we received the news that the German army surrendered to the Allied forces in Italy but here in Slovenia there was no sign of the fighting to abate. Day after day the usual routine to encircle the enemy and destroy them piecemeal continued with many tragic results. With many partisans dying unnecessarily our fury was growing by the hour and it was hard to hold back some of the badly tempered partisans. German officers were executed on the spot and many soldiers were beaten with rifle stocks. It was ugly. General Alexander Lohr commander in chief of the Army Group E was forced to sign the total surrender of the German forces under his command in a locality near Velenje on the 9th of May. Nevertheless some of his troops together with Ustashe, Domobranci and other collaborators continued to fight to their destruction. The Germans could not comprehend until the very end that they were beaten by a voluntary army formed in the majority of untrained young men and women who did not receive proper training to fight wars. We learned as we went and made many costly mistakes but we managed to beat an army fully trained for mountain warfare, lavishly equipped and fed. The Germans had tanks, artillery, plenty of aircraft of all types, plenty of machine guns with mountains of ammunitions but they were arrogant, full of themselves, followed inflexible strategies and they were very predictable. Even at the lower ranks we could read them like a book. From reports captured in the field, the units used in the operations against the partisans were selected from the best troops available. The officers, the sergeants and the corporals in the Jager regiments were all experts in mountain fighting. Their orders were specific not to give the partisan time to rest or to recover. At the same time they received the instructions to ignore the rule of war and kill all the prisoners taken in the field. Despite the enormous effort the results were delusory as the majority of the partisan units left the areas in time and the massive bombardments fell on empty ground. All of the Generals used by Hitler in the fight against the partisans were a very unlucky bunch. The old General von Hoblin and General Alexander Lohr were joined by General Ludwig Kubler a hero from the Russian front. From information obtained from the British, General Kubler was responsible for big victories in the Polish and the Russian front. Here, in Slovenia facing poorly trained officers all of them faced their Waterloo".
Bingo. Hitler killed (maybe) 6 Million. Stalin's body count is well into the tens of millions even by conservative estimates. The Western powers should have aided Germany is stemming the flow of Communism- the very Communism that is now coming back to bite us decades later through years of Marxist subversion of Media and Academia.
What about the current anti-Russia madness from our current and previous administrations? Many European countries fates got sealed already. E.g. Romania and Poland.
Last Dog Up Britain and France started it why star a war for a country called Poland and why didn’t the uk and France go to war against ussr they invaded Poland too
No he didn't. He begged churchill for peace. And the Jewish-dominated press misled and propagandised Americans into the war. Watch "the greatest story never told." Hitler never wanted a war. International jewry declared war on the Reich in 1933.
WW1 was started by France, Britain, & Russia. WW2 was started by Zionists who refused to stop choking Germans with Communist BULLSHIT. That said, he made plenty of mistakes in many ways.
The Germans may have lost WWII, but like the legendary phoenix, Germany always bounces back to reclaim primacy in European affairs. Whether in the form of the Holy Roman Empire, the German Confederation, the Reich of 1871-1918, the Weimar Republic, the Third Reich, or the Federal Republic, Germany is always been at the epicentre of European and even world politics.
Gagarin's Point of View I'd hardly call the Weimar Republik a successful regime. It was the WR's failed attempt at western politics along with the shackling restraints bestowed upon the country with the treaty of Versailles that ultimately led to the political onslaught of radical party's being able to gain popularity and eventually power.
There are two gigantic reason for Hitler's loss of war 1.The uprisings inBalkan States of Greece and Yugoslavia that postponed the operation Barbarossa. 2.Early coming of Russian winters. Other reasons is making noise
To all the people who are commenting "the Germans were not that bad because they were fighting communism too" please walk up to a 90 year old WW2 vet who lost dozens of friends in Europe and tell him that to his face. He probably would spit on your face. The USA defeated Russian communism with economics and containment. Nazi Germany tried to defeat Russian communism with 13 million soldiers and the most brutal land warfare in human history that included things as burning kindergartens with the children still inside of them.
Curious use of the word Anglo-Saxon to describe the Germans and British. At the time they would have erroneously said the British were Germanisch or Germanic - this would have been a good description of the language, rather than the people.
The German attack on Russia was a logical response to the oil shortage in Germany. The war was over in 1942 unless Germany uncovered new sources of fuel. In this context, Barbarossa was a logical offensive.
A country without resources.not able to feed itself.should not attempt world domination. You should not attempt to fight on two fronts.never mind 5 fronts. Especially in a protracted war
Are you stupid? Germany never attempted or was even interested in world domination. Hollywood told Americans that big lie, in order to get ignorant American boys like you to put on military-uniform costumes and go fight to get killed and wounded, maimed and crippled for life, to-HELP!-stop Hitler from ruling the whole world!. Idiot. Hitler was only interested in conquering Poland, Czechoslovakia and western Russia, east of Germany. He only campaigned in the west after Britain and France declared war on a Germany at peace with them. Moron! Read a book! God!
@@scottn1405 it's not about intentions. It never is. It's about capability and opportunity and on top of that in this case there was a threat and an immediacy too
Sure was convenient that Hitler committed suicide, because none of the generals or any other German admits mistakes or doing anything wrong because of all Hitler's fault!
Not listening to generals was never a reason why Hitler lost the war. His generals said tanks won't be able to penetrate France's forests, yet he didn't listen to them and attacked, taking out France. Loyalty was also a good thing, cause no matter how good the specialist is, if they're against you, you're doomed
“He wasn’t an imbecile or a madman. He was a Nazi. “ That seems like a good definition of Nazi to me. This was a great video. Now I need to find this guys book.
There are so many variables in play that it’s difficult to summarize. If you had a supercomputer, you might begin to model a world war …. Maybe. Looking back, some things are hard to believe. The US shipped Soldiers directly to war zones with no training. Congress eventually insisted that all Soldiers get some training. DePuy, Gorman, and Kanner created the later training revolution, but they made IMO one large mistake. The TRADOC training base would train individual tasks and units would train collective tasks. LTG Bown later included the ten days of war as the ENDEX at the Armor Ctr. Today DARPA created SIMNET which allows simulated large scale force-on-force training.while the NTC allows company level force on force training. Getting back to WW2, a huge variable was logistics…. Germany faced huge problems supplying units across immense distances with poor infrastructure.
What makes you think "Hitler" lost? I know the German people were screwed by Hitler and crushed by Allied forces, but the Nazis came to America on the Project Paperclip plan. 1,000 of them and their families. Hintz Kissinger, Robert Mueller, Wernher von Braun, etc. They were welcomed by the Bushes, Rockefeller, Dulles, etc. This is precisely what Dwight D. Eisenhower was objecting to with his Military Industrial Complex speech.
![[TH] 2024 PMGC League | Survival Stage วันที่ 1 | PUBG MOBILE Global Championship](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/FVFT-PFwU80/mqdefault.jpg)
"our german scientists were cleverer than their german scientists", that one was was savage.
As plagiarised by the screenwriters of the Right Stuff I recall.
And then the Americans took those German scientists
@@petemommo9622I was trying to remember if it was The Right Stuff or Dr. Strangelove. Classic line either way and completely true. The Germans not only had the brain trust to build The Bomb long before we did but it was never prioritized. In the movie Oppenheimer it's cast as Nazi anti-Semitism being the accidental savior and reason they didn't get the bomb; the truth was that Heisenberg wasn't given the mandate or resources to do it. Whether that was ideological or the German command staff thought they didn't need such a weapon isn't certain, but when US spy (and major league catcher) Moe Berg attended a lecture and talked with Heisenberg in Zurich in 1943 (with orders to shoot and kill Heisenberg on the spot if Berg concluded the Germans were getting close to having a bomb) the conclusion was that not only were they not close but there wasn't even a coherent program to make one anytime soon. Nevertheless, it's so scary to think about how a small handful of decisions could have swayed the outcome of WW2 and how different the world would be today had that happened.
@@cmikeinkc6905It’s unfortunate how things turned out.
@@cmikeinkc6905yea because the state of Europe and US isn’t “scary” at the moment🤦🏻♂️
What the hell were they doing asking a renowned historian like this to deliver this lecture, when they should have asked several thousand self appointed TH-cam experts to lecture them instead? Fools!
Exactly, I was waiting to be called to give this lecture, I have 4 years of TH-cam experience, which more than qualifies me.
Well, a lot of these TH-cam warriors are busy killing Osama Bin Laden with their keyboards.
Actually, I was wondering why they even bother teaching History at colleges any more. With TH-cam and a couple hours, I can become an expert on anything!
Looks like TH-cam experts 10,000 renowned historian 0 a massive scoreline in our favour therefore no contest.
They should have hired me and not the other guys, I'm well seasoned with Reddit AND TH-cam.
As Napoleon Bonaparte said. Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.
The Great Patriotic War (WW2). 27 million Soviet people died in the fight against Hitler's Nazism.
Well, yes, but I would still hint a Hitler that Holocaust is a mistake.
@@rozachernushchernush5549War they started with their former ally. That doesn’t make Soviets good guys.
@@otofoto If it were not for the strength of 27 million Soviet guys, Hitler's Nazism would have burned many more people in the furnaces of concentration camps than 6 million Jews and 9 million Soviet citizens. But this cannot be explained to a Nazi.
@@rozachernushchernush5549 slava ukraini
Well, i am not an expert. But i guess fighting basicly all other Industrial nations at the Same time might have been a strategic mistake...
And trying to do this with a dysfunctional centrally planned economy was a huge mistake to go with it.
Albert Speer worked "miracles" in increasing production. Not as "miraculous" as the immense productivity of American industry, but some tremendous increases in output? What was this "miracle"? He dismantled restrictions placed by the Nazi bureaucracy that were holding everything back.
Well, needing war materials shipped in from overseas and getting into a war with the largest naval power in the world kind of compounds that.
It is fair to point to the types and organization of armor in the British and French armies (mostly organization and use) and the difficulties in fighting the Germans after they achieved a breakthrough (dealing with German mobile warfare tactics), and say the British and French were not prepared for the war they were going to have to fight.
But it is also fair to point out that Germany wasn't prepared for a war with Britain, having no reasonable means of knocking Britain out of the war. The naval blockade bled Germany. They needed more oil than Romania could provide, but the blockade prevented import from Venezuela (with over 4 times the oil output of Romania).
Germany could have beaten USSR, if not for this blockade and the need to keep large forces in France and Norway, and the massive losses to the Luftwaffe from the Battle of Britain. A thorn in Germany's side.
The Germans were forced into war, not the other way around
@@iansneddon2956 There's a billion nuanced details that guaranteed a Nazi defeat to the British empire, but people only look at the battle of Britain and sort of imagine Britain as this helpless damsel in distress
Hitler had no choice. They'd already occupied most of Eastern Europe and initiated a trade embargo. And newly created, at the Treaty of Versailles, Poland, was raping and slaughtering Germans in the Danzig corridor...50,000 Germans. He was surrounded from all sides and cut off. And the Bolsheviks, having arranged the largest military buildup in history all ain't the Eastern European border, were coming.
Any attempt to say it was Hitler's mistakes that caused their eventual defeat is short sighted and stupid, where the ENTIRE world was arrayed against her, as funded by those terrible enemies of European Christianity.
I've heard there was a German tank commander (I think) who said something like "1 German tank was worth 4 US tanks. The problem was they always sent 5."
Pretty amazing how much power Germany and Japan were separately able to muster in a fairly short amount of time.
@Phil McCrevice
Just the war in the pacific was not lead by tanks because they were utterly useless in jungle warfare.
@@derkernspalter also useless since it would be logistically stupid to ship tanks from one tiny island to another
The saying I’ve heard is that 1 German tank is worth 10 Allied ones, but they send 11.
@Craig Johnson Has anyone ever suggested that you may have seriously flawed ideas?
Frankly, that's the impression I get from the statements you've posted.
Being a classical liberal, I won't "report" your post but I suspect that most people would consider it.
@Craig Johnson you linked a vid with one woman who has multiple mental disorders who just says that her Jewish family was worshipping the devil as proof of your claims. This claim comes from a Christian point of view as jewish culture doesn't see the devil as an absolute force of evil but as a representation of temptations preventing you from submitting to gods will which is a weird thing to say you worship if you really come from a Jewish background. What part of your argument were you trying to reinforce with it?
TH-cam: Here's a lecture about Germany and WWII
Me: okay I'll watch it all
Who
Asked?
These youtube - me - memes are getting old.
Because no Country on earth could go to war against the US, UK and USSR all at once and hope to win. Basically Germany was fighting 6 other Germanys when you factor Manpower, resources and manufacturing capacity. The US alone had twice Germany's population , 5 times their resources and 4x their manufacturing capacity.
Even more, but Hitler shouldn;t declare the war to the United States, then the war would be easily won
Pity their logistics were hampered by a designed lack of imagination.
@Hugo Pointillart It's a known fact that Roosevelt wanted to get involved in the war with Russia and England scampering in the face of the German onslaught till late 1942 and 1943 he saw that as a chance to assert his supremacy by playing a big role in the war but Congress and the American public didn't find any reason to involve themselves in the war in the first place..Pearl Harbour attacks presented a great opportunity for the Govt and Roosevelt to gain support from American public and resources from the Congress for arms, ammunition in order not just help the Allies win the war but show them as the biggest contributors to its success thus giving the United States an opportunity to show the world their stature and clout, which was in the time to come was challenged by USSR which was then came to be known as the Cold War.
Yeah. They only lasted so long due to incompetence of the allies
@Hugo Pointillart Actually, the fight in the East might well have gone for Germany if Germany did not have to tie down vast resources in the West -- 100 divisions in occupation, hundreds of submarines, much of the strength of the Luftwaffe -- and if the US and UK had not shipped vast supplies to the USSR.
I always laugh when I hear Brits complaining about the US being late in rescuing the UK from a fight that it got itself into but then found it could not win without US help. When did the UK become a nation of ungrateful whiners?
21:07 The ignorance of cold and its drastic effects on people's health, while pretending to be able to tough it out, is one of the most teaching elements. It seems such a benign boasting, which many people still do today, yet it shows how being realistic can also mean looking "weak" in the eyes of delusional people.
That's why Patton's pivoting to Bastogne to "save" the 101st Screamin' Eagles was so impressive ..
Bitter cold and snow.....
@@Kendrix1they didn’t need saving
The Great Patriotic War (WW2). 27 million Soviet people died in the fight against Hitler's Nazism.
i might get side-eyed for this one but i can’t think of a better example of unhealthy patriarchal bs hurting men. “real men can survive subzero war conditions in shorts” could be a south park bit, it staggers me how many men have had to suffer on this planet for being held to such inhuman standards masquerading as strength
@@rozachernushchernush5549Russian losers got their asses kicked and got bailed out by America
5:30 Classic Sun Tzu: "when you're strong, appear weak; when you're weak, appear strong.
Thanks. That’s almost as useful as a mathematics textbook that only tells you to “count carefully.”😂 sometimes your advice is so vague and broad that you might as well have said nothing at all.
@CTS.CriticalThinkingSkills they are weak and appear strong, sounds like Sun Tzu to me
Sun tzu’s manual was only applicable for his time period. Does modern military use doctrines from the 1700s? His manual today is only useful for morons to quote to make themself seem more intelligent than they actually are. So tired of all this sun tzu garbage. You have zero life lessons to learn from a military manual from any time period.
You got that wrong, Churchill bombed Berlin so that Germany would bomb London, glossed over here ,
Lol stay in your delusional if you think that they are weak ,they are already economic super power and will soon before defacto world superpower overall
The day Hitler decided to invade the USSR and not England, his fate was sealed. 80% of German casualties occurred on the Eastern front.
He knew there was no way to invade England. For these simple reasons: 1) he didnt have air supremacy 2) the German navy was vastly outnumbered and out gunned by the British 3) not enough landing craft 4) no enough resources to supply the troops
@@Speedymisha All are true except 4.
What resources was he lacking in the time periods in which Operation Sealion wouldn've taken place? At that point in the war he had oil reserves and all the supplies he required for a huge land war in Britain.
A land war in Britain would've required much less time and resources than the Eastern front required.
@@adamanderson3042 Well said. Plus... if we're honest here... Britain had the world's best navy (japan and usa were up and coming but britain was still #1 prewar), they had a decent airforce (RAF)... thats it. Their army was small and depleted, relying mostly on its colonies for manpower. The problem was air and naval superiority the axis did not have... If it weren't for that, Britain itself would have probably been invaded easier than France..
Hitler never wanted to go to war with Britain. He didn't even expect them to go to war over Poland. And the Soviets were VERY close to being defeated. the ukrainians HATED the Russians and the soviet government. He could have conscripted them. Had he not been tied in the west, Soviets would have been toast.
England still would’ve been a disaster.
What a brilliant lecture and so beautifully delivered. I hope England never stops producing men like these.
Men like him would never have stood a chance against the german blitz.those hands are so clean and uncalloused - he could turn a page, but he never shot a gun or dug a trench to find cover in.
@@Charleybones but yet, they did.
@@Charleybonesthe pen is mightier than the sword Charley
Hitler to Mannerheim; "If one of my generals had stated that any nation had 35,000 tanks, I'd have said: 'You, my good sir, you see everything twice or ten times.You are crazy, you are seeing ghosts.'". Hitler underestimated the USSR and their winters. The window of opportunity for the Nazis to defeat the USSR was very narrow.
@James Williams finally somoene said it....learn from history and do not repeat it ;or adapt heavily to ride with it😉
No, he had no window at all. Our goverment at the time was too stable and could have absorbed even more loses in manpower and territory. It is most likely that Stalin would go on fighting even if Nazis were marching past Urals mountains. Which is hard to imagine since infrasrucure there is just horrificly bad and distances are too big. Same story with Napoleon. Nicolas II goverment however was another story all together.
Probably could’ve invaded earlier than June.
Yup
Great talk, and I agreed with all Dr Roberts' points. However, one important element was missing. Germany had no oil. It struggled by making substitutes from its coal reserves but this was never enough or of sufficient quality. The invasion of USSR was as much to do with getting hold of the oil fields in the south as anything else. It's also the reason Hitler did not want war with Britain. While our army and air force was lacking investment our so-called senior service was big enough to blockade Germany and prevent oil imports. Lack of fuel severely impeded the Nazi effort throughout the war and is one of the reasons they lost.
Interesting point, There were squads of German Luftwaffe personnel visiting Allied aircraft crash sites solely for the purpose of recovering aviation fuel and oil for use in their own fighters.
I think you are overlooking the Germans ability to get oil from Romania. Yes the 1942 campaign was toward the Caucasus oil fields but the initial invasion had other objectives.
@@pauloneil8531 No - they were chronically short of fuel throughout the war. This hampered their ability to mechamise their logistics and greatly reduced the impact of the Luftwaffe and Panzer divisions.
As I said Paul, I accept all Dr Roberts' points including Nazi aspirations to wipe out the USSR's Jews, to wipe out communism and create desirable living space for the 'master race'. But unlike his generals, Hitler wanted to prioritise the push to the Caucasus and warned them that if they failed to reach their goal they would run out of fuel. Romanian oil was only a small part of the solution. They needed Baku and its adjacent regions. But it was so far south the Nazis' eastern flank was hopelessly exposed and the supply lines overstretched.
why didn't they build trains that could run on Soviet rails? That was a big issue for them too
Hitler was a politician, not a military strategist. As the presenter says over and over, he made military decisions using political ideology as his primary set of principles. Of course, this would never happen in the United States...I mean, no President would EVER interfere with military commanders in the field for political reasons *COUGH* LBJ *COUGH*
Call him whatever you want to but do not forget what brutal harm he did to so many innocent people; Don't forget that all his right-hand cronies, ~all turned to the allies for a way out after all their immortal actions; They cried and begged and killed themselves and their own kids; Don't forget,,, If killing off entire specific races of people AND then thinking you are gonna breed your own super race does not make you the #1 psychopathic of all time, what does? What is madness then?
I'd say he was an nco not a military strategist and an ideologue not a politician.
Meth got to his brain
A real charmer Told his people we are a great people.The master race
Look at all our advances in Sciences All those Noble prizes we won
Told them We Germans don't deserve to suffer like this
I think you have missed out a slab of history and facts. You have missed the point of the lecture.
Guderian visited the Soviet Union in 1938 and wrote a report to higher staffs in the Wehrmacht, warning about the much better than anticipated tank force they had. It was ignored. That is what politics do to military leadership. You can observe this in the US nowadays and elsewhere too, I guess 😂😂
That's not the whole story. Soviets were able to concentrate on tanks as their fighters, trucks and I think locomotives were supplied by the US, and German morale on the front was being sapped by constant news of the homeland being bombed, which also cut German production. Take away lend-lease, or take away the bombing campaign, and the Germans wouldn't have been turned at Kursk, would have taken Baku's oil, have hung on in Stalingrad and advanced into Moscow. Guderian couldn't have foreseen lend-lease nor the Eighth Air Force so arguably his conclusions were correct.
@@lqr824 I am not touching other factors, playing out in later war years. I just hint an ignored fact by Hitler and today's pseudo-hindsight war ananlytics. You don't have to praise your US lend and lease psyops in me as well...Your Eight Air force did not turn the war 20 km in front of Moscow. Get off Discovery Channel 😂
The length of the Eastern Front fron the Artic coast of the Soviet Union to the Black Sea means that the overwhelming majority of fighting in Europe was on the Eastern Front and 90% of the German casualties in WWII were on the Eastern Front Front. Indeed, so great was the struggle on the Eastern Front that Allied support of the Soviet forces amounted to 2% of Soviet military supplies. The supply of US trucks was the one exception, these trucks, used alongside Soviet trucks meant that the Red Army was a fully motorised army while the German army was dependent on horse transport for its military supplies until the end ofvWWII.
@@almacmathain6195 Dream on...ur US garbage tanks and trucks were useless and left behind destroyed when the Ural factories went in full construction. The Soviet union would have won the war alone. France and GB would have been beaten totally without the Soviets. The US invasions just shortened the war and happened in fear of a soviet dominion.
@@almacmathain6195 > Indeed, so great was the struggle on the Eastern Front that Allied support of the Soviet forces amounted to 2% of Soviet military supplies.
By what definition of supplies and according to who?
That said, even if it was 2%, the Wehrmacht wouldn't have been turned at Kursk, would have destroyed Stalingrad and Leningrad and gotten Baku's oil without that aid.
mental note: National Executive should always listen to strategic generals.
Something Sun Tzu told everybody who would listen.
I’d be wary to trust this speech. The presenter talks about strategy but doesn’t even mention the letter from the German armaments minister to Hitler in 1941 which said in no uncertain terms that Germany had six months of fuel reserves left and then they would be forced to DEMOBOLIZE. The invasion of Russia was a strategic move to drive for the oil in the caucuses but the generals wanted to capture Moscow and fought Hitler which resulted in a drive North instead of concentrating South on the oil fields. Ideology played a part but it was mostly propaganda to fuel the fire, not the underlying cause of the decision to invade. That this wasn’t even mentioned makes me very concerned because there is no way this historian hasn’t seen these primary sources. Besides, everyone knows the “we lost the war because of Hitler’s meddling” story was invented by surviving generals post-war in their memories to make themselves look better.
Was Patton a strategic general?
The Great Patriotic War (WW2). 27 million Soviet people died in the fight against Hitler's Nazism.
@@furrycow9263 Good point...American generals did not look so good on the actual battlefield imo.
Because dictators always think they know everything and overrule the better advice of others who obviously know better.
The narcisstic psychology that propelled these individuals into power thus becomes their own undoing.
I'm glad they lost, otherwise many of us would not be here.
i.e. Dictators gonna dictate...
Hitler famously spurned the advice of his generals, intelligence services and scientists - confident he knew more than all of them. Remind you of anyone?
Two things England and Russia were mishandled. The phony war and how easily England folded in France should have showed him ignoring England after France would have worked. No U-boats, Italy is on their own in Africa, stay out of Greece and the Mediterranean, Briton for the most part would have become Sweden. If his phyco mind required invasion of Russia, build up your forces and not have 3 fronts to deal with. Not leaving Briton alone brought the US into the conflict, he had to deal with Russia, the bombing of Germany, Africa and Italy, the Atlantic wall, the Siegfried Line and land defense of Germany because such an invasion was real with US/English success in Africa and Italy. A single front in Russia with maximum effort probably would have worked, and you could use 100% of your U-boats cutting off British supply of Russia. And the US on the sidelines watching Russia, who stabbed France in the back with their treaty and their Polish invasion, probably would have stuck to their own problem with Japan and not given Russia enough aid to make any difference.
@LivingOnLifeDyingfromLife187 I found that to be an interesting comment, nevermind that other guy who seems to be posturing over nothing.
In seeing a lot of shortcomings in modern politics I opted to heavily commit to learning about political philosophies through history, especially since I'm already a real history enthusiast, and it's pretty eye-opening to find the kinds of things like that which you've mentioned in your comment. In modern times we've internalized the Liberal conception(s) (I'm not using the term in that contemporary American partisan way) of politics and it really heavily affects our understanding of many things, I think.
@@mykofreder1682 The problem with Greece and some of the Balkans was that Hitler was allied with Mussolini and Mussolini wanted to re-establish something resembling the Roman Empire, and he didn't want to only live in Germanys shadow either, so he set out on his own conquests.
Italy was, though, at war with Britain, due to being allied with Germany and due to Italy's engagements in Africa, so the British would have opened up new fronts anywhere Italy went, meaning that everything Italy did Germany had to bolster such that it didn't turn into something that could be used to strike effective blows.
As for Britain and leaving it alone or not, Germany never wanted war with Britain. Britain and France declared war on Germany, and Germany sued for peace constantly throughout the first 2 years or so. It wasn't not leaving Britain alone that bought the US into the conflict, it was that Britain was trying to bring the US into the conflict, and even though it couldn't get the US in as an overt combatant, Britain was successful in managing to secure life-support from the US economy. This meant that the Germans were already up against the immensity of the American economic powerhouse, and since the US wasn't officially a combatant, Germany was in a strange spot wherein Britain, with the US economic backing, could whittle Germany down gradually, or Germany would have to be able to try and stop the US being able to keep Britain artificially alive. Germany was basically in a situation where it was screwed either way as far as the US.
"We won because our German scientists were cleverer than their German scientists."
LOL
starfox300 lolll you are right
Classic, the miracle of German engineering.
What German scientists? They were all Jewish,forced to leave
Russians got some scientists about 100 and they worked on Russian space program,But Americans got Von Braun and all his documents
No. Not at all.I do know the Americans got around 112 German scientists that were working on rocket technology.Werner Von Braun was one of them.He decided to surrender to the Americans,his brother spoke English and helped him.Where you get that the "Americans only kidnapped 1 Germany" is beyond me
What a great lecture, so well delivered too, thank you! Absolutely brilliant.
Recycling wartime propaganda is brilliant? If you want brilliant go read some of David Irving's work.
@@BigJohnson-g3jah yes the famed holocaust deniers work is free of propaganda lol what a stupid comment
The orator does have some valid points but he is mostly off on a lot of them. Hitler was an ideologue but not all of his motivations came from ideology. For example, his view that Hitler invaded the Soviet Union purely on racism and anti-semitism. Germany came out of the Weimar Republic without much oil and had to produce synthetic oil from coal which is an expensive process.
Oil is one of the vital resources that is needed to maintain a mechanized military and for economic consumption for the economy in general. Hitler was an international economic expropriator and looter foremost when it came to military strategy. His world view isn't just that of racism but also cultures/nations struggle between other cultures/nations for the world's natural resources which is one of the bases of fascist autarky. The British had imposed a blockade on Germany which forced the state to pursue other sources of oil and that happens to be the Caucasus. Outside of the Caucasus and Russia, the only source of oil was Romania but that wasn't enough. The blockade would block imports by sea. Hitler wanted to control the oil fields of the region to switch his focus back at Britain.
Germany did not have sufficient transport of materials and equipment. Their standard leFH 18 10.5cm howitzers were towed by horses and they didn't have enough heavy howitzers. That makes logical sense because a tank without fuel and oil is useless while a towed howitzer that is light enough can at least be moved by horses. Horses are not preferred for moving things around obviously because they are too slow. Hitler prioritized resources over tactics than his top generals. Hitler was no economic genius but he did have financial ministers/advisors, etc, so he had some grasp on the state of the economy of the nation and the military. He could either cease militarism or he could try to take over more resources to maintain an army. This is a very similar situation to the Saddam Hussien invading Kuwait in the 1990s. You have belligerent states who want a military but can't afford it, so in order to maintain it, they need to invest more wars to try to acquire more resources to sustain it for immediate satisfaction.
The reason why Germany lost Operation Barbarossa was the focus on major cities such as Moscow which was not a good idea for a "quick war" because Blitzkrieg or tank tactics for that matter are not that effective in urban combat. Urban combat suits the defenders the most especially if they are more familiar with the environment. Cities were not major sources of resources, in fact, stuff like oil was imported from other regions into such cities such as the Volga River feeding Stalingrad from the South. By pursuing urban combat, the Germans opened themselves to setbacks such as "the grain elevator fight" in Stalingrad. Things like tank fire, light artillery fire, could not get the Russian defenders out of there. They would be in a drawn-out battle and allow the Soviets time to counter-attack while the Germans were in the least advantageous position basically nullifying the shock to the enemy. The Germans never surveyed the urban environment either which is not a good idea when fighting in unfamiliar territory. Even still, successfully capturing Moscow wouldn't guarantee Soviet surrender and it would be costly to do so. The German command thought of the France victory and had no grasp of the ferocity the Soviets had to defend their land. German generals also failed to realize how much of a disadvantage urban combat would be in a crunch.
About Japan-Germany cooperation, the orator is correct. There wasn't much cooperation between the two and because of that, the US got into the war which was disastrous for the Axis because, at the time, the US was the greatest producer of oil by far. The US did not use horses for their towed artillery, they didn't need to. They used mechanized primary movers instead. The US could power a fleet of ships without much problems or a war effort.
😂
this british 'professor' sucks rabbi dick
I agree. This is a very lazy position to analyze the war from. “Hitler was not insane, he was a crazy Nazi.” That is a big difference right there.
i mean the invasion of the USSR was mostly due to ideology. Ever heard of Generalplan Ost? Do you know what Hitler thought of the Slavs, or what he wanted done to them?
Treye Billups the “ideology” was secondary to the lack of oil and food Germany needed to be a self sufficient country.
The russkies don't get enough credit. The war on the western front was a skirmish compared to the carnage of the east
Russian winter got Hitler,his weapons froze.Stalin had spies in Siberia worried about a Japanese attack that never came These troops were trained for winter fighting Had Hitler gotten to Stalingrad during better weather conditions, he would have gotten all the oil he needed, and he would have fought to last NAZI
russkies got too much credit, they just throw men into machine guns untill they got to Germany. good ol' stalin
LOL@@darealbukchoyboi
Fools Gold Found He talked about the eastern front for like half the lecture.
Russia helped start the war, so it'd be hard to credit them with ending it.
Short version.
No country can beat the US, UK and USSR at the same time.
Afghanistan could!!!! :)
@@Vedioviswritingservice Ouch, That hurt....truth usually does.
@@Vedioviswritingservice "Afghanistan could!!!! :)"
How would you know since Afghanistan has never been at war with those three countries at the same time.
Plus, Afghanistan as the country and government was defeated in like one week if that.
If your definition of 'beating' somebody is that once you are militarily and institutionally defeated and replaced, you still have pockets of armed guerrilla fighters continuing to resist, then shit, France and Poland both beat Germany long before the USSR, USA and UK.
@@Vedioviswritingservice I think you forgot the key words, "At the same time".
@Brandon McGowan Wrong
"No enemy bomber can reach Berlin. If one reaches Berlin, my name is not Goering. You may call me Meyer."
-Hermann Meyer, September, 1939
Okay...Meyer
Hoi4
I know where you got that from. That book has been called into question for it's exaggerations.
I've heard it said that at various points during WW2, Allied forces had the ability to take Hitler out using either sneak attacks or some clandestine operation, but it was far enough into the overt conflict that the Allied powers realized that Hitler was such a colossally bad strategist, and tied up in ideological foolishness and internal power disputes, that it ironically made more sense to keep him in charge, because if he'd been taken out, almost ANYONE who'd have replaced him would've done a much better job and potentially cost the Allies the war.
Idk. There has to be more to the story that we’re not told. Like was it dresden or some city of civilians that was totally destroyed by the allied powers but didn’t need to be. There were lots of war crimes committed by the west. French raped as many people as the soviets. I did read there’s a secret cemetery that holds a hundred Americans convicted and killed for war crimes in Europe.
Maybe hitler was a bad at strategy, but like then ya got operation paper clip and the U.S. taking back thousands of war criminals etc and some nazis later in life working in nato. Canada gave an applause to a nazi this past year cause he fought Russia haha.
Then ya got ties from people in the federal reserve that had relatives in the central bank of Germany. It’s like that smells fishy.
@@koltoncrane3099 There was really no reason to bring whataboutism into this thread.
Hitler sucked at strategy, that's all that really needs to be said.
@@LabTech41 Your hatred for what you know not, blinds you.
@@koltoncrane3099 Was this guy a confirmed Nazi or was he just an average German soldier? Some people use Nazis for any standard German, not realizing that tons of Germans fought in the war that where not Nazis nor did they believe in them.
@@LabTech41oh you're so right! I'm so fed up with "whataboutism"!!!
Why would anyone thumb down this? It’s a history lecture..... what on earth could you be annoyed it?
Skinheads
Headphone users beware, stop the video 5 seconds before the end.
Okay I'm going directly to the last 5 seconds and see what's up.
The Great Patriotic War (WW2). 27 million Soviet people died in the fight against Hitler's Nazism.
I was on a run while listening to this and the adrenaline from my eardrums being blasted to shreds made me run 2 miles further than I had anticipated lol
@@rozachernushchernush5549 slava ukraini
Naaaaah... The Ukrainians didn't kill 27mil Russians. Germany did. Hence: Ruhm für Deutschland
Why Hitler Lost the War - Actual version:
You can't win a war on two world powers which can beat you in production, logistics, manpower, and energy/oil production at the same time.
@jomax clux Even in the great depression the US was way more economically productive than Germany.
What you people need to realise is that the USA has like 4-6 times more people and like 13 times more natural resources and farmland than Germany.
It's not because Germany's economy was shit or bad, Germany was handicapped in the exact same way as if the current USA went to war with 4 identical clone USA's.
There is strength and power in higher numbers.
@jomax clux I don't know. It depends on your viewpoint. But for social programs I don't think that was true. I think that the US and Europe had identical safety nets until the end of WW2 when Europe increased them and started to create single payer systems.
facts, this guy thinks that analyzing specific examples of german blunders would change the fact that they were outproduced, outmanned, and outgunned. They simply could not have won a total victory against the allies.
@@ethanstewart3292 It is hard to argue, whether Germany "could have won WW2", since there was no one thing that brought defeat. Rather it was a series of bad decisions. Was there a chance if the Nazis had limited the war to Europe? would coordination with Japan had significant impact? Was Hitler a lizard? Well maybe, but it is hard to say.
@jomax clux WWII as we define it in the West started in 1939. USA did not enter until 1941. The Great Depression was catalyzed by the 1929 stock market crash, and was extended by a series of bad government decisions for almost ten years. The US was well on the way to an economic into a recovery before 1939, and the US population had been significantly higher than England and Germany's for decades before that.
Had US not entered the war, Russia would still have wiped out Germany almost by themselves, but it would have cost then another ten million casualties, and taken an additional two years.
Hitler didn't declare war on the US because of ideology, it was a gesture to the Japanese in the hope that they would then declare war on the Soviet Union.
A most excellent presentation by Dr. Roberts. Thank you for posting this.
you are welcome
sleep good, UNTIL YOU DON'T
Didn't Germany have the entire British Army cornered and could have annihilated them all at Dunkirk, but instead allowed them to live and escape?... If they didn't do that maybe things would have happened differently.
@Daniel Cutbush
good point
I haven't really seen this explanation proposed, but I think it bears consideration. Hitler had a lot of respect for the British soldiers from his WWI experiences. 300,000 British troops with their backs to the Channel would not have been a walkover. The Germans still had to face considerable French forces reorganizing to the south. Every German casualty and every lost tank would be one less to finish mopping up the French. Hitler may not have considered the losses of an assault worth the gains. After all, British troops withdrawn to Britain, largely without their equipment, were effectively out of the battle for France.
This is a bit of myth. The germans were still bombing the hell out of them at Dunkirk. They stopped because they had outrun their supply lines and needed to rearm. In my opinion Hitler didn't just let them go but was waiting for his supply lines and would have captured them if he could.
@@samlusby4576 I am more inclined to agree with this point of view. Another thing that adds credence to an Operational pause to regroup, refit and rearm is that no one, including the Royal Navy, thought that Britain could pull over 400,000 troops out of a town with no working port facilities. Prior to the Operation the RN thought it might be able to pull between 40 and 80,000 men off the mole.
Given this, it is probably likely that no one really thought most of those trapped troops would be going anywhere, so its likely that Hitler believed his forces would have the time to rearm, re-equip, and move in to mop that pocket up when his forces were back up to close to full strength and capability.
The main reason yes i think so...but ideology or what not
The Nazi party did not just include Hitler. He talks about this as all being the plot and ideology of one man. For instance, when talking about Ukraine, the harsh occupation plans were embedded not only in the ideology of the party, but also in the army. There is one crucial thing that Roberts does not include in criticizing this aspect: The Wehrmacht relied on the territory it occupied. There had been made no plans to provide sufficient rations and supplies to the army. In fact, the logistics were virtually ignored given that they believed the war to be over before Christmas. The plan was to simply take what they needed from the locals. It was this use of forced labour and food confiscation that turned the locals against the occupiers. The Nazi party and the army had decided to avoid the situation that they thought made them lose WW1: unrest at home. They wanted to maintain a comfortable life for the German civilian population. This necessitated a harsh occupation policy.
Having one's eyelids frozen off must bring insanity.
4 out of every 5 Wehrmacht soldiers killed in WWII died on the eastern front.
Citation needed.
Anti Freddy Krueger not really, considering most of the German casualties were on the eastern front.
@@ousarlxsfjsbvbg8588 Most as in 51% or 80%?
Yes. And they were fighting at odds of 12 Communist scum led Russian Soldier to 1 Wehrmacht Soldier.
Vow! thank you very much for this absolutely well-constructed and entertaining speech. I wish I were half as good a speaker as Dr. Roberts is.
Werner Heisenberg was in charge of creation of german atomic bomb. When asked after the war why he failed to create one he said he did it purposefully as he did not wanted the nazi to have a nuclear bomb.
Yeah. That's probably what I'd say too.
When Germany broke its pact with Stalin and invaded the USSR, Stalin feared doom for his regime if Japan, which already occupied China, invaded the Soviet Far East. Fortunately for Stalin, the Soviet dictator had a highly effective nest of spies among the Japanese: Richard Sorge, a German; Hotsumi Ozaki, a Japanese journalist; and Kinkazu Saionji, a Japanese political operative. As M. Stanton Evans details in _Blacklisted By History_, this circle of Soviet spies succeeded (or assisted) in persuading the Japanese government to strike south into Southeast Asia, rather than north into the Soviet Far East. Meanwhile Soviet spies in the US such as Lauchlan Currie lobbied FDR to seek an accommodation with Tokyo. This all took place in 1941. We will never know how differently events would have turned out if Germany and Japan had joined forces to crush the USSR in a pincer movement, Western forces were not drawn into East Asia to defend against Japan, and the US had stayed out of the Pacific war because Pearl Harbor never happened.
What a fantastic lecture. Liked that the lecturer himself was a touch nervous, he must've known the caliber of his audience then & they must've been some learned people. GREAT WORK TEACH!
Recycled British wartime propaganda is not fantastic. He does make his lecture interesting by it's delivery, but content wise it falls a bit flat. He did have some factual points like the Nazis not understanding America and that Hitler clung too tightly to ideology at the expense of sensible strategy. Also he had some other good point but here was working to continue to make sure the view of the British establishment remained the dominant view.
@@BigJohnson-g3j What's the title of your book?
What a gem 💎
Outstanding educational!
Worth bringing it back!
Thanks for sharing!
Hitler would listen to his generals for hours but he was texting on his iPhone most of the time.
:- |
It was Blackberrys back then, pretty sure.
@@rogerpattube Idiots
He was texting while driving!
*sexting
His generals weren't always right. There are times they told him something couldn't be done only for him to do it. Hitler was actually more competent than most people give him credit for. He more or so began to fall apart the older that he got.
Russian manpower, the American economy, and British perseverance.
Can't underplay British technology, which was a game changer. Radar, the Merlin aircraft engine, the Hedgehog anti submarine device, code breaking technology, I could go on. The US brought enormous production capacity to bear, a decisive factor, together with aircraft development.
Also known as jewish collaboration
@@evanpenny348 The Poles helped with the code breaking. But I agree, the Merlin gave the p-51 the performance to destroy the Luftwaffe. Radar was also crucial.
@@aristosachaion1784 Haw dare you to even consider the fact tha all allied countries were controlled by jews, antisemite!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
American industry made the difference. Montgomery would be nothing without US material.
In another words: If Hitler wasn't such a nazi fanatic he could easly estabilsh first European Union.
@Reality Unveiled Disregarding your pic, I agree. His view was more that those people should all have their homeland. The Celts to theirs, the Nords to theirs, the Anglos to theirs. Hitler wrapped a rope around his neck with ethnic focus on one end and national focus on the other, forgetting that the two tend to pull apart from each other more often than not. In order for it to work out, you have to slowly reconcile the one with the other, not forcefully as he did.
@@DetachaplePenis until recently, the term of 'nationalism' has always referred to ethnocentricism - they were literally interchangeable. In other words, your claim that an ethnic focus competes with nationalism is ignorant, if not just outright stupid. Hitler's only mistake was showing mercy to people he hadn't yet defeated.
A Nation and an ethnicity are more often than not overlapping but not a perfect overlap. You get different ethnic groups living across national boundaries. A nation is the land you can govern, not the people necessarily. A nation has more rigid boundaries, an ethnicity isnt as confined. To reconcile the two you need to take land containing those peoples, give up land that doesn't, or remove people not fitting the target ethnicity. Hitler's mistake was not that he wanted ethnocentrism, it was that he wanted it quickly. That makes you threatening to surrounding nations, regardless of how justified you are in your removal of peoples or annexing of historical territory and thus you gain more enemies than allies.
@@Gogglesofkrome His last appeal to reason was ignored.
@@harrykrumpacker871 I didn't mean to ignore him, I'd never gotten the notification of the message. It's 1AM at the moment, and I need to take a shit and go to sleep; I'll make my reply tomorrow
Excellent talk and delivered with an absolute minimum of notes . The point about ideology trumping sound military strategy is well made and entirely plausible.
Hitler lost the war because he did not follow the simple rule - Know Your Enemy. Hitler lost the war because the war was about industrial power and numbers of men. Hitler lost the war because his early bluffing and overpowering weaker forces made him feel invincible. Hitler lost the war because huge manpower and resources were wasted on "super weapons" and protoypes that never were produced. Hitler lost the war because he used an "unbreakable" code- the Enigma machine. Hitler lost the war because he made more strategic blunders than successes. The greatest event of the war was the USA economy which in 3.5 years produced massive munitions and equipment and the B-29 and atomic bomb.
An old german soilder once told me "Always be sure to polish the backs of your shoes because thats the last thing people see of you as your walking away" Old Hugo Hopfliecsh might have been on the wrong side in 43, but he was sharp as a tack.
Hitler did not want a Europe-wide war. He did not want war with Britain and France, who declared war on him after he went into Poland. The idea that he wanted to take over Britain is absurd, as is evidenced by his allowing the British Army to escape at Dunkirk. Also, Britain attacked German cities for months before Hitler finally retaliated with the Blitz.
That's the problem with defense treaties. You can't simply limit your enemies when attacking one single country.
Wrong.
1) He did not 'allow' British troops to escape at Dunkirk, they escaped *despite* him. Fact is no one, including the Royal Navy, thought that Britain would be able to evacuate 400,000 men from a town with no working port facilities. Hitler stopped the Panzers because they needed to refuel, rearm and reorganise, he and most of his Generals believed they had the time to do that.
2) British bombing of german cities before one particular incident was restricted to dropping LEAFLETS. The Government did not want to give Hitler any excuse to turn to bombing British cities as he had done in Holland, Belgium, France, Poland and Spain in the 30's. It was not until a Luftwaffe bomber dropped its bomb load over London that permission was given to the RAF to launch an actual bombing raid on Berlin in retaliation.
Now, granted, that lone German Bomber was almost certainly lost and had no idea they had just bombed London, but the people on the ground DID NOT KNOW THAT.
lastly, you do realise the idea behind defensive treaties right? If one of the signatories is attacked the other signatories join the war. Thats the damned POINT of a defensive treaty.
Basically all of your arguments are demonstrably trash.
You can't claim to not want war when you invade a nation that has defense pacts with the other nations around you.
Well, no, he didn't want war with France (yet) or Britain, he only wanted them to stand by as he carved up Poland with his eastern counterpart.
He chose a good tie for this speech. It's the colours of the German democratic movement.
Good eye!
The colours are German, their composition as a tricolore mimicks the French one. That made a lot of sense in the 1820/30s. I do not know where you see Britain's role. The colours are commonly rooted back to Lützow's Freikorps in the Napoleonic wars, and often also to the Holy Roman Empire.
Herr Pickelhaubenmonarchist, you are not replying? Well, what a shame. Maybe you have read up on the matter on Wikipedia. You know, I wouldn't mind a Kaiser, provided he has little or no power. The constition of 1849 (Paulskirchenverfassung) would have been okay. But what we got wasn't. It's good that your lot at least had the decency not to abuse the democrats' colours.
I think it's actually a London Yeomanry Regimental tie.
No, fool, it's the colors of a Scottish regiment. Grow up, will you?
In a nutshell, the Germans lost the war because they "bit off more than they could chew", largely thanks to Hitler's impulsiveness and arrogance. World War Two was the greatest industrial war in history, where the single most important factor was - IMHO - the production of weapons of quality, in vast quantities, and at the right time. The Germans - again IMHO - scored a "A" on quality, a "C+" on quantity, and a dismal "F" in timeliness.
well said mate
Quality of tanks weren't even all that great because they were rushed in development during a war and their engines were never powerful enough for the panther or tiger or Ferdinand. Their heat most reliable tank was the panzer 4 or and the sturmgeshutz.
I haven't watched the video yet but I am going to guess that going to war with everyone at the same time had something to do with it!
@Alien Alien Invading Poland, northern Europe, and beginning a genocide are NO REASON to go to war?
I enthusiastically concur! Just like Daesh at war with all miscreants, i.e., every human being, Muslim or whatever, who ain't a freak of their own sick sect... Or like the narcissistic Orange Buffoon, enabled by the decadent GOP party & empowered by voting Deplorables, at war with China on his own, befriending mortal enemies, thrashing allied economies, weakening fellow Western democracies. The good Dow Jones news won't last, the mortal debt and accented inequalities will before long badly bite Uncle Sam on the arse... The fat egomaniac will fall eventually and assuredly hurt many folks still wise, brave and free.
@@chrisafp071 Holo.ho@x
@Alien Alien Do you think of yourself as a troll?
@Alien Alien I remember a day 42 years ago when I noticed a book of German propaganda that was on the shelves of a library in California. It showed a group of dead people in German uniforms. Now, I knew at the time that they were actually murdered Jews that the Nazis had dressed in German army uniforms to make propaganda that Poland had attacked Germany first. The book was in English. I brought it to the attention of the librarian that there was some wretched Nazi propaganda on the shelves. I knew that it was unlikely that there was someone so stupid as to believe it (after all, it was 1977 and people knew about Hitler, the Nazis, and the war), but it still angered me. Are you really so stupid as to believe Nazi propaganda in 2019? I somewhat doubt that you do, so I suspect that you must be a troll.
High on my (uninformed) list of missed opportunities was Hitler's failure to persuade Franco to attack or allow Germany to attack Gibraltar (from the land). Franco used the Luftwaffe to win the civil war and yet the terms or behaviour of both parties failed to form an agreement. The fall of Gibraltar would have changed the N.Africa campaign and the attack on Sicily.
If Spain were not "neutral", it would have opened up being attacked through both Italy and Spain. Spain was heavily weakened by the Civil War, and relied on the US for a lot of imports. An Axis Spain would have been a weakness.
Canaris helped keep Spain neutral.
On the surface it does seem like a missed opportunity, but looking into the events, there was little hope for the germans.
Spain was still effectively a pile of rubble incapable of waging war on the scale of the second world war, a fact franco knew all too well.
The person responsible for diplomacy with the Spanish was Wilhelm canaris, chief of the abwehr (german intelligence agency), who was very much against the war and nazism, so he would intentionally point out Germany's shortcomings and play up allied strength to franco to stop him from joining the axis, his work was instrumental in dashing any hopes of spanish participation.
Franco would use the insider information to demand extensive aid to spain for her to join the war, which hitler was unwilling to give.
These factors, combined with spanish, italian and french disputes in the Mediterranean and africa all cemented Spain's neutrality
It could have made an impact in the Mediterranean, but it very likely would not have affected Normandy, nor would it have affected the eastern front at all. The Germans needed to capture the Suez Canal to hurt allied commercial shipping, I don't think Spain would have gotten them to that strategic objective. Their lack of supplies is the biggest factor in the failure of North Africa, they also did not have the dominating manpower nor the resolve the British seemed to show in holding the canal. Like I said though, it doesn't change the eastern front in the slightest, which ultimately was the biggest threat. Germans needed better logistics which may have been possible if they had mechanized? But they flat out needed more oil and even steel, they quite simply could not manufacture equipment at a fast enough rate. Sabotage and aerial bombings wore their manufacturing down, until they ran out of fuel, equipment, territory to retreat, and men.
Franco wasn't silly enough to allow German forces into Spain.
Cheers for the earrape at the end.
Blue Snail scared the living shit outta me. My head hurts now
He pick an idiot as an ally-Mussolini
@@georgeevangel2616 That "idiot" invented fascism, the only known cure to communist subversion.
@@Stormvermin-bx1lh liberalism
@Phi6er lol
When our troops on the beaches, the King called for aday of prayer,the country responded and the changes were amazing, small boat owners said the channel was a calm as a mill pond, never done this before, the sky to stormy for the Luftwaffe, so this was for the nine days it took to clear the beaches, a panzer group was racing to Dunkirk and was suddenly ordered to stop by hitler, no one ever found out why and they had to stay put.
There seems to be quite a lot of what I'd consider outdated historiography here. Japan would have never helped Germany out. They weren't really allies in a true sense of the word, they simply had some mutual interests, but after the bloody nose Japan received at Khalkhin Gol they were extremely reluctant to rattle the Soviet Union. This was to the point that in 1945 a large reason why they held off on surrendering was because they were hoping to have Moscow mediate peace talks between them and the United States, a prospect that utterly failed when the USSR invaded Manchuria.
The fall of Moscow would have meant nothing for the Soviet war effort either, for whom the war was existential, and that in itself was a dubious possibility at best considering that Army Group Centre was at a brink of total collapse after the counteroffensives following the Battle of Moscow. It's actually incredible how close Centre came to folding entirely, Moscow was their last true shot at anything for that campaign season.
The Battle of Britain could also not have been won by the Nazis, and even had the RAF been damaged more than it was, Sealion would still be a nonstarter because the Royal Navy would have had a say in the matter and neither the Kriegsmarine nor the Luftwaffe would have a great chance against that force within the English Channel.
Hitler's role is also, in my view, overstated. There were plenty of times in which Hitler listened to his generals and they were the ones who made mistakes. A lot of Hitler's tyranny was written about post-war by German generals who were trying to exonerate themselves, but especially prior to the attempt on his life in July 1944, Hitler was quite happy to listen to his generals, even in cases where he was correct and they were not. Hitler was famously very against Operation Citadel, saying that it made his "stomach turn over." Hitler did a lot of reshuffling, even moreso towards the end of the war, but by that point the war was already lost anyway and in many cases Hitler understood the overall strategic situation better than his commanders did. Let's not take their word at face value here - they were Nazi sympathisers or outright Nazis themselves, not exactly the most trustworthy bunch.
Lastly, in this presentation there seems to be a distinct lack of United States. The US alone had the resources to outproduce Nazi Germany at a terrifying rate. Any discussion of any possibility of German victory in the war would have to be balanced out by the simple fact that the US could provide Lend Lease to all of her allies whilst also fully equipping her army with state-of-the-art equipment that could easily rival the best of German kit. No wunderwaffe could match the sheer production of the United States alone, and with USSR in the mix the numbers were simply impossible, especially with the artisan style of production Germany used prior to Speer's simplifying of the war economy in 1943 - far too late.
Ultimately Nazi Germany couldn't have won the war. At best they could have hoped to murder a few tens of millions more innocent people, but there was never a chance that they would have won the war. Ideology was an extremely important part of this, and I agree that Hitler was extremely ideologically-driven, but Germany was also completely out-generalled and outproduced. They were defeated by smarter commanders, better strategy, and better equipment.
I agree with you. His approach seems to me to be almost frivolous. His point is their strategic decisions were wrong because were always based on ideological premises. That is a very superficial analysis. Ideology (a very pernicious one) played an important part but geopolitics, economy, sustainability of the war effort, the Soviet and American mobilization to a war economy, etc, (and Hitler was well aware of all that) all played an equal important part in the strategic decision making.
I agree that Germany could never have won the war once the US joined the Allies but that's precisely what Dr Roberts says: one of the foolish decision of Hitler's was to declare war to the US in December 41.
I agree that Germany could never have won the war once the US joined the Allies but that's precisely what Dr Roberts says: one of the foolish decision of Hitler's was to declare war to the US in December 41.
And why are you not lecturing at the US War College? 😮 After all, your “brilliant” and “Grand Strategy-focused” historiography is so ‘spot-on’ and ‘rich’ in evidential documentation, from the tactical and operational to the psychological and diplomatic! I try and try to locate your sources, particularly your own works on Amazon!!! 😢 In point of fact, I can’t help but hear De Gaulle in June of ‘40, Dowding in August of ‘40, Zukov in September of ‘41, Churchill in May of ‘42, etc. screaming: “GET ME ‘MRKapcer13!!!’ The name of your book again, please?? 😊
Ahh …… TH-cam 😂
@@michaelcoatney2568 Well said! TH-cam historians taking on people who have studied and published decades, always fun to read through the comment sections.
That's easy. He stopped attacking RAF airfields and started attacking English cities. Thus enabling RAF to grow stronger and win Battle of Britain which denied him German air cover over English Channel. So his boats were unable to cross the channel without being attacked by British aircraft.
The Royal Navy was still the most powerful fleet on the planet. They wouldn't have succeeded regardless.
Attacking the cities also pissed off the population something fierce.
I heard germany didnt have transports too
They had a Ford truck plant. Making trucks under licence@@MrFazerlogin
@@mauricehodgson3143 i mean water
I always thought it was inevitable that they would lose, Hitler's grand fuckups just made it quicker.
He could not have produced 400 subs while rearming the army and the airforce. The industrial capacity was not large enough.
Could have if the resources put into battleships were used. Raeder wanted ships, Donetz wanted subs but was denied.
@@rogerpattube Takes more than resources, when talking about Naval Buildup you also have to take into account the production facilities themselves. Fact is prior to the war Germany simply did not have the slipways required to build subs in such high numbers.
Granted they buit more slipways during the war, and you do not need the kind of facilities to build submarines that are required to build Battleships, but the fact still remains that you *do* need those slipways, you do need those drydocks, and Germany simply did not have the Naval building capacity at the time to come anywhere near close to building that number of U-Boats prior to the war.
Pretty much the only two nations that DID have that kind of Naval production capacity were Britain and the US.
The "Atlantic Wall" used over 1.1 million tons of Steel...worth over 4000 subs...
OIL was the main reason Hitler lost the war.He could never get enough of it.The USA and USSR were oil producing nations,Germany and Japan were not.
The Japanese scenario does not bear in mind the defeats of the Japanese in Siberia in the 1938-1939 war. Furthermore, Hitler double crossed them by signing the Molotov Ribbentrop pact in 1939. Thus, the Japanese returned the favor in 1941.
There is a more simple answer.
They were a mechanized army that started WW2 with 2 months worth of fuel.
Not a problem if they have Friends.
@@WadcaWymiaru The Bankers bought off any potential "Friends". Europe and "Great" B is paying dearly for it now.
Hardly surprising that an upper class Brit "historian" neglects to mention that Kim Philby was feeding Ultra decryptions to Stalin, who on occasion read them even before Churchill did. This was a decisive factor at Kursk, and thereafter informed the Soviet strategy during the German retreat, speeding up the Soviet advance considerably.
80 % of Nazi forces were destroyed on the Soviet soil.
Anglo-Saxons were virtually irrelevant to the victory over nazis.
There were other factors. Hitler had Parkinson's, which probably affected his rigid decision making. If Hitler had started WW II a year later, Germany's military would have been much stronger (Roberts touches on this with his U-boat story). He never allowed his military to do strategic retreats. He thought every German should fight to the last man, and not retreat to fight another day. Also, Germany did not have enough oil to fully supply the Blitzkrieg. So many other factors.
Complete and other nonsense.
1. If Germany would have waited, then the allies would have gotten stronger too. They were not just waiting around. (Britain more than doubled its divisions, Soviet army was undergoing structural reforms)
2. Hitler did not allow the army to retreat in order to prevent a mass route like with Napoleon, and to prevent getting encircled. Therefore he came up with a system of strongpoints to defend which worked out pretty well. Hitler was not always right but also not always wrong, look at operation citadel where the Wehrmacht was defeated while Hitler said it was a bad idea and went with his generals ayway
Hitler also hate the idea of strategic reserves.
If Hitler started WW II in 1940, he would have probably lost the very same year, at the latest by 1941.
"He never allowed his military to do strategic retreats. He thought every German should fight to the last man, and not retreat to fight another day."
Actually, he did (see retreat to the Dnieper) and in most cases, as in 1941, his decision to hold firm actually saved the Germans from collapse.
"Also, Germany did not have enough oil to fully supply the Blitzkrieg. So many other factors.
"
That's what Hitler wanted to go after in 1941, but then, his supposed 'experts' convinced him that Moscow should have been prioritized and the rest is history.
He is talking with a lot of hindsight. If hitler had just listened to his generals, he wouldn’t have successfully invaded poland and france. So we shouldn’t just blame it all on hitler, like the entire high command did in their memoirs.
But he does have a point with all the ideological nonsensical decisions. That really doesn’t require hindsight.
"Lord" Roberts is just a racist right-wing liar.
His books have been thoroughly debunked.
The reason(s) Germany lost the war cannot be Oversimplified by saying it was ideological. That's RIDICULOUS.
Many, many factors. And it wasn't all a/h fault. That's also a myth.
Thank you
Yes it's a fairly average lecture. So much more than ideological although that is obviously a part of it, but nowhere near the biggest.
Very simple lecture.
He provides a common demoninator for many flawed decisions but does not put it forward as a single cause. He is much more nuanced in the lecture. Besides, it's a 36 min lecture, I would assume the book(s) is much more nuanced due to less space and audience restrictions.
Recent point in fact: President Trump told his generals (the real generals) "Go kill ISIS. Let me know when they're dead." That is how a President should fight a war.
Germany lost because they bit off more then they chew. Russia by them self's sure. America and England together...Maybe. But Canada, England, America, Australia, Russia, France, Africa, etc etc.....You can't fight everyone on the playground all at once....
zach hardly just England, the UK
Uhm yeah Einstein, Russia fucked up 85% of all nazis, it would've destroyed the remaining 15% by themselves too.
@@rrt4511 If all of the allies in 1942(1/2)-1945 had backed out of the war and the only "allies" left were the Soviet Union then yeah I would say the Soviet Union would've still won even with all the redeployments of the Luffwaffe.
But if the war with the Western allies never happened then Germany would've definitely won.
Germany directing all of its resources into a war with Poland and then the USSR with no wars with the West happening between the periods of 1933-1945 would've resulted in USSR defeat. All of the oil and resources in the submarine campaign against England etc and all the manufacturing capability that could've been dedicated to only military equipment relevant to the Eastern front would be substantial.
@@adamanderson3042 it would've taken longer but the USSR still would've won
@@rrt4511 I don't know. The German economy was bigger than the USSR and a significant percentage of its war time budget was dedicated to the navy and other forms of the military that were not utilised for the Eastern front. I feel like if Germany somehow KNEW for sure the Western allies weren't going to intervene, they could've pulled off a victory.
No way they would have ever won... no oil and no man power. They were doomed from the start.
Lee Deville preach 🙌🏻
This, funny how PhD doesn't realize this but continues to ramble about the less important stuff.
So each mistake made was ideologically driven. I don't believe when studied closely this passes scrutiny. To come to this conclusion one must believe that without these errors Germany would have won. The problem with that is that the battle of France (the German's greatest WWII victory) was very nearly undone when Guderian was ordered to stop and consolidate, but he ignored the order and continued to push ahead of the allied attempts to establish a defensive line. Though it was fast and conclusive, it's result was on a knifes edge and occurred despite Hitler's errors, not because of his decisions.
Beyond that, the combined resources of the allies were simply too great. Even if the Germans had won at Stalingrad, or even got into Moscow, they simply did not have the resources or manpower to beat the Soviets with allied resourcing and Western European threats.
Germany lost because they bit off more than they could chew. On nearly every battlefield after 1942, the Germans were outnumbered and outgunned. Even when, like at Kursk, they consolidated their forces for an attack. One could make the argument that if they had gotten to the Caucas's oil fields it would have changed things. The problem with this argument is it ignores the shortages in everything else to include(and most importantly) trained manpower. To execute the tactics that the Wehrmacht had been successful with required a cohesive well trained combined arms team. Once you no longer have that manpower, the system falls apart rapidly.
The Germans, Hitler and the Nazi's could only have won WWII by making peace with one of the great powers they faced and dealing with them one at a time.
Quite often these explanations are simply post hoc ideological circlejerking about the Allies had a better form of government and culture when it's really just about manpower and industrial capacity. It's the same with almost any modern war. I'm sure the Chinese Communist Party preaches that they won the Chinese Civil War because Communism is superior.
Oil is why they lost. Hitler’s Generals failed to capture the necessary oil fields to maintain the German war machine. They were forced to go on the defensive with out enough oil to power all of their tanks. Their loss was inevitable after that point
How did Bruno Ganz not win the oscar?
Because it was a horrible portrait!
Bradley Coopers next picture has him playing Hitler, I assume he will win the oscar for it
What makes you say that? He must have studied the secret YLE recording. @@oldtimer7635
Because he portrayed Hitler.the academy would not like it.
@@number6Mclovin the academy is all jewish, itll never happen.
They had to put Germany first, or Germany would have been communist.
East Germany ended up Communist.
Ugh. Stupidity.
Half of Germany became communist anyways!
inaccurate account of why Hitler moved further after Ukrain and Baltics. He was interested only in oil from Kaukaz mountains, hence Stalingrad battle. It was purely strategic since Germany was running out of resources.
Germany wasn't running out of resources, especially oil. The Ploiești oil fields and the synthetic oil plants were sufficient for German needs.
Nah, not true! Caspian oil they were after
+Mushka Shebrushka I know they wanted them. What I said is that they didn't need them.
they needed to get it before the russian I guess...
+beatbang000 Baku and Maykop were already in Soviet territory. They were, by far, their main source of oil. It could be argued that depriving the Soviet Union of Caucasian oil refineries was actually more important, strategically, than adding them to the German economy.
Hitler should never have tried to go into North Africa. He never should have aggressed against Russia. Keep Poland as a buffer. Once Hitler had marched down through the Balkans to Greece, he should have conquered Palestine, established Israel, transported many, many Jews there, and marched to Baghdad. Once in Baghdad he should have established an oil pipeline from Baghdad to Televive, and shipped the oil in tankers to Greece and then a pipeline to the homeland. Only after establishing rule in those occupied territories should he have aggressed against The Netherlands, and Belgium.
The USSR, Britain and its empire and the USA. Thats why Germany lost.
The Commonwealth can't be thanked enough for their sacrifices. Of course the Resistance fought well and the Soviet Union suffered unmeasurable, but both Europe and the SU were fighting for their homeland while Americans, Canadians, Australian, NZ... could so much easier say "not my war" and yet they had the foresight, dedication and bravery to not let the Axis do as they pleased.
It was Halder not Hitler that bet everything on the USSR collapsing. Hitler wanted to go for the resources, especially oil. This is what you say he should have done.
As for not making strategic retreats where was the oil to conduct them? Where was the oil to take back the territory conceded?
One of the few comments that is actually pretty sound.
This man hit the bullseye. Hitler was blind. He imprisoned all the Jews, while the only thing he had to do was remove those in control of the money and the propaganda. Also, his “lebensraum” would turn potential allies into enemies with no other choice but fight to the bitter end. People say that Churchill was a Jewish puppet and a liar, that Stalin was a communist monster who killed more than Hitler. Well, Hitler proved to be the fool who sacrificed not only Germany, but the whole lot of Europe for his ideology of hate. And now, every time we try to take control of our continent back from the powers that be, we are called Nazi, as though we’re going to repeat the crimes of this maniac.
If your entire argument boils down to "Hitler was an idiot and didn't let competent people do their jobs" you don't need 36 minutes for that.
From my fathers memoirs : "In our estimations the Germans lost more men in the last four weeks than the previous 16 months. On the 6th of May we received the news that the German army surrendered to the Allied forces in Italy but here in Slovenia there was no sign of the fighting to abate. Day after day the usual routine to encircle the enemy and destroy them piecemeal continued with many tragic results. With many partisans dying unnecessarily our fury was growing by the hour and it was hard to hold back some of the badly tempered partisans. German officers were executed on the spot and many soldiers were beaten with rifle stocks. It was ugly. General Alexander Lohr commander in chief of the Army Group E was forced to sign the total surrender of the German forces under his command in a locality near Velenje on the 9th of May. Nevertheless some of his troops together with Ustashe, Domobranci and other collaborators continued to fight to their destruction. The Germans could not comprehend until the very end that they were beaten by a voluntary army formed in the majority of untrained young men and women who did not receive proper training to fight wars. We learned as we went and made many costly mistakes but we managed to beat an army fully trained for mountain warfare, lavishly equipped and fed. The Germans had tanks, artillery, plenty of aircraft of all types, plenty of machine guns with mountains of ammunitions but they were arrogant, full of themselves, followed inflexible strategies and they were very predictable. Even at the lower ranks we could read them like a book. From reports captured in the field, the units used in the operations against the partisans were selected from the best troops available. The officers, the sergeants and the corporals in the Jager regiments were all experts in mountain fighting. Their orders were specific not to give the partisan time to rest or to recover. At the same time they received the instructions to ignore the rule of war and kill all the prisoners taken in the field. Despite the enormous effort the results were delusory as the majority of the partisan units left the areas in time and the massive bombardments fell on empty ground.
All of the Generals used by Hitler in the fight against the partisans were a very unlucky bunch. The old General von Hoblin and General Alexander Lohr were joined by General Ludwig Kubler a hero from the Russian front. From information obtained from the British, General Kubler was responsible for big victories in the Polish and the Russian front. Here, in Slovenia facing poorly trained officers all of them faced their Waterloo".
"We defeated the wrong enemy" - U. S. A. 5 Star General George Patton, 1945 Berlin, died weeks later.
@@ryanz8775 and all you need to read is Mein Kampf and you'll see what he thought of Slavs/Russians. Enough said.
@JoeKopsick4Congress false
Bingo. Hitler killed (maybe) 6 Million. Stalin's body count is well into the tens of millions even by conservative estimates. The Western powers should have aided Germany is stemming the flow of Communism- the very Communism that is now coming back to bite us decades later through years of Marxist subversion of Media and Academia.
@JoeKopsick4Congress that's the j ew influence you fuckstick. before cultural marxism western values were traditional and family oriented.
What about the current anti-Russia madness from our current and previous administrations? Many European countries fates got sealed already. E.g. Romania and Poland.
Excellent Lecture!!! Thank you!
he lost because he started it.
Last Dog Up Britain and France started it why star a war for a country called Poland and why didn’t the uk and France go to war against ussr they invaded Poland too
Questionable assertion,.Germany did not want that war.
No he didn't. He begged churchill for peace. And the Jewish-dominated press misled and propagandised Americans into the war. Watch "the greatest story never told." Hitler never wanted a war. International jewry declared war on the Reich in 1933.
WW1 was started by France, Britain, & Russia. WW2 was started by Zionists who refused to stop choking Germans with Communist BULLSHIT. That said, he made plenty of mistakes in many ways.
The Germans may have lost WWII, but like the legendary phoenix, Germany always bounces back to reclaim primacy in European affairs. Whether in the form of the Holy Roman Empire, the German Confederation, the Reich of 1871-1918, the Weimar Republic, the Third Reich, or the Federal Republic, Germany is always been at the epicentre of European and even world politics.
Gagarin's Point of View holy roma empire was shit ;D the other facts may be right
lXlElevatorlXl I'm afraid the Holy Roman Empire was very much a German kingdom.
Gagarin's Point of View it was kingdom of many german kingdoms , but the high society soke french till Luther made german a written language
Gagarin's Point of View I'd hardly call the Weimar Republik a successful regime. It was the WR's failed attempt at western politics along with the shackling restraints bestowed upon the country with the treaty of Versailles that ultimately led to the political onslaught of radical party's being able to gain popularity and eventually power.
Now the place where European Central Bank resides. Frankfurt! Place where the Euros are printed! :)
There are two gigantic reason for Hitler's loss of war
1.The uprisings inBalkan States of Greece and Yugoslavia that postponed the operation Barbarossa.
2.Early coming of Russian winters.
Other reasons is making noise
To all the people who are commenting "the Germans were not that bad because they were fighting communism too" please walk up to a 90 year old WW2 vet who lost dozens of friends in Europe and tell him that to his face. He probably would spit on your face.
The USA defeated Russian communism with economics and containment.
Nazi Germany tried to defeat Russian communism with 13 million soldiers and the most brutal land warfare in human history that included things as burning kindergartens with the children still inside of them.
Curious use of the word Anglo-Saxon to describe the Germans and British. At the time they would have erroneously said the British were Germanisch or Germanic - this would have been a good description of the language, rather than the people.
A great contribution to my understanding of the war.
I hope not, the guy is wrong on almost all counts
So this is what the War College teaches Colonels who want to be Generals? Ok... It's a way.
The German attack on Russia was a logical response to the oil shortage in Germany. The war was over in 1942 unless Germany uncovered new sources of fuel. In this context, Barbarossa was a logical offensive.
A country without resources.not able to feed itself.should not attempt world domination. You should not attempt to fight on two fronts.never mind 5 fronts. Especially in a protracted war
+walter chiappini Germany never intended world domination.
Are you stupid? Germany never attempted or was even interested in world domination. Hollywood told Americans that big lie, in order to get ignorant American boys like you to put on military-uniform costumes and go fight to get killed and wounded, maimed and crippled for life, to-HELP!-stop Hitler from ruling the whole world!. Idiot. Hitler was only interested in conquering Poland, Czechoslovakia and western Russia, east of Germany. He only campaigned in the west after Britain and France declared war on a Germany at peace with them. Moron! Read a book! God!
A country not being able to feed itself attempting world domination, worked fine for Britain.
Sure, with the United States feeding it.
@@JBrandeis1 : I was thinking more about the 1800s and the colonies but true.
Invading Russia was not a choice...Russia would have invaded instead
exactly. not a choice. :(
th-cam.com/video/TyANHGWbUHA/w-d-xo.html
Nonsense. Stalin was not about to invade Germany anytime soon. His armies were in horrible condition after the late 30's purges.
@@scottn1405 it's not about intentions. It never is. It's about capability and opportunity and on top of that in this case there was a threat and an immediacy too
@@scottn1405
Stalin quote: "A modern army is an army of attack. The Red Army is a modern army."
Sure was convenient that Hitler committed suicide, because none of the generals or any other German admits mistakes or doing anything wrong because of all Hitler's fault!
The reason Herr Schickelgruber lost the war is because he started the war. Their is no other conclusion to draw.
Wasn't he the baker in Heidelburg on Hogan's Heroes?
Correction. Herr Schickelgruber and Uncle Joe conspired to start the war. It was not solely Hitler's decsion/action.
Beyond a "short, victorious war," what strategy did Germany have?
Not listening to generals was never a reason why Hitler lost the war. His generals said tanks won't be able to penetrate France's forests, yet he didn't listen to them and attacked, taking out France. Loyalty was also a good thing, cause no matter how good the specialist is, if they're against you, you're doomed
Agree. Its an old and hashed out point they love to use to make him look dumb.
The attack through the Ardennes forest, was a plan conceived by Manstein and Guderian, so in that case, he did listen to his generals.
The idea of blitzkrieg was not the idea of Hitler, but of Heinz Guderian. And pushing into Dunkirk to surrond it was the works of erwin rommel. Lol😊
“He wasn’t an imbecile or a madman. He was a Nazi. “ That seems like a good definition of Nazi to me. This was a great video. Now I need to find this guys book.
In short: he was an unwavering ideologue.
@rrobertt13 Or College Professors.
@rrobertt13 very little. in fact, they often wear similar clothes, haircuts and call each other "Comrade."
Fascinating lecture. Thank you so very much...
There are so many variables in play that it’s difficult to summarize.
If you had a supercomputer, you might begin to model a world war …. Maybe.
Looking back, some things are hard to believe. The US shipped Soldiers directly to war zones with no training. Congress eventually insisted that all Soldiers get some training.
DePuy, Gorman, and Kanner created the later training revolution, but they made IMO one large mistake. The TRADOC training base would train individual tasks and units would train collective tasks. LTG Bown later included the ten days of war as the ENDEX at the Armor Ctr.
Today DARPA created SIMNET which allows simulated large scale force-on-force training.while the NTC allows company level force on force training.
Getting back to WW2, a huge variable was logistics…. Germany faced huge problems supplying units across immense distances with poor infrastructure.
What makes you think "Hitler" lost? I know the German people were screwed by Hitler and crushed by Allied forces, but the Nazis came to America on the Project Paperclip plan. 1,000 of them and their families. Hintz Kissinger, Robert Mueller, Wernher von Braun, etc. They were welcomed by the Bushes, Rockefeller, Dulles, etc. This is precisely what Dwight D. Eisenhower was objecting to with his Military Industrial Complex speech.
Germany got greedy & Japan brought the US into the war.
The end.
The USA wanted an excuse for war.
@@melclarke64 And Japan gave it to them. Whats the difference?
th-cam.com/video/-6UgHmeiXyo/w-d-xo.html